CRL.M.C. 3101/2019

Page 1 of 11

$~

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%

Reserved on: 25.04.2023

Pronounced on: 29.05.2023

+

CRL.M.C. 3101/2019 & CRL.M.A. 12671/2019

DHANPATI @ DHANWANTI

..... Petitioner

Through:

Dr. R.D. Rana with Mr. Jagdish

Singh, Advocates

versus

THE STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI) & ANR.. Respondents

Through:

Mr. Satish Kumar, APP for the

State with SI Udai Singh, P.S.

Saket.

Mr. Vipul Chaudhary, Advocate for

R-2

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SWARANA KANTA SHARMA

JUDGMENT

SWARANA KANTA SHARMA, J.

1.

By way of present petition under Section 482 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure, 1973 ('Cr.P.C.'), the petitioner seeks setting aside of

order

dated

22.05.2019

passed by

learned

Additional

Sessions

Judge/Special Judge (NDPS), South, Saket Court, New Delhi in Criminal

Revision No. 27/2019 titled 'State vs. Dhanpati @ Dhanwanti' whereby

charges were framed against the petitioner under Sections 341/323/506 of

Indian Penal Code, 1860 ('IPC') in FIR bearing no. 57/2017 and order

Digitally Signed

By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN

Signing Date:29.05.2023

18:46:46

Signature Not Verified

CRL.M.C. 3101/2019

Page 2 of 11

dated 14.12.2018 passed by learned Metropolitan Magistrate-02 (Mahila

Court), South, Saket Court, New Delhi discharging the petitioner was set

aside.

2.

Brief facts of the case, as disclosed from the record and impugned

order, are that present petitioner is complainant in FIR bearing no.

606/2014 registered at Police Station Kotla Mubarakpur, Delhi under

Sections 376/506 IPC, pending trial. The present FIR was registered on

the complaint of complainant „P‟, a practising advocate who had alleged

that on 08.02.2017, she had appeared in Saket Courts with her client

Rajender Singh who was accused in case arising out of FIR bearing no.

606/2014 in which the present accused is the complainant. It was alleged

that after the hearing in the said case, the petitioner/accused had started

abusing and misbehaving with the complainant in the court premises, and

when she was going towards her chamber along with her client, the

petitioner had stopped her and had beaten and threatened her. It was also

alleged that the petitioner, after having restrained her, had misbehaved

with her and had bitten her hand badly. After completion of investigation,

charge sheet was filed against the petitioner herein for offences

punishable under Sections 323/341/506 of IPC.

3.

The learned MM, vide order dated 14.12.2018, after perusing the

statements of the complainant and witness Rajender Singh, and noting

that there was no other public witness, no CCTV footage of the place of

incident as well as no medical examination of the complainant to support

the case of prosecution, had discharged the accused i.e. petitioner for the

alleged offences. The relevant portion of the said order reads as under:

Digitally Signed

By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN

Signing Date:29.05.2023

18:46:46

Signature Not Verified

CRL.M.C. 3101/2019

Page 3 of 11

“...There is no other statement of any other public witness. The

complainant refused to get her medical examination done and

there was no CCTV camera found at/ near the place of the

incident because of which there is no CCTV recording. It is

vaguely alleged that the complainant was beaten, threatened by

the accused and that the accused had also misbehaved with her

badly and had bitten her hand. Even the statement of Rajender

u/s 161 of Cr.PC vaguely mentions that there was haatha-pai

between the accused and the complainant.

Therefore, based on the material on record, the court is of the

view that there is no prima facie case made out against the

accused as there are no specific allegations attracting the

ingredients of Sections 341/323/506 of IPC against the accused

and the accused is discharged...”

4.

Thereafter,

the

State had

preferred Criminal

Revision

No.

27/2019 and vide order dated 22.05.2019, the learned ASJ had set aside

t