$~48 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision: 14^th August, 2024 + CRL.REV.P. 119/2023 STATE (NCT OF DELHI) THROUGH DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF POLICE .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Ajay Vikram Singh, APP for the State.

Inspector Naveen Kumar (P.S. Samaypur Badli).

versus SACHIN JAIN .....Respondent Through: Mr. S.C. Malhotra & Mr.

Kunal Kishore, Advocates.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN AMIT MAHAJAN, J. (Oral)

1. The present petition is filed challenging the order dated 30.05.2022 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-02 (‘ASJ’) (North), Rohini Courts, in SC No. 610/2021 in FIR No. 306/2020, dated 20.04.2020, registered at police station Samaypur Badli, for offences under Section 326(A) of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereafter ‘the impugned order’)

2. The learned ASJ, by the impugned order, has framed charges under Section 302/326A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’) against the accused – Dilip, and discharged the respondent of offence under Section 285 of the IPC.

3. The FIR was registered pursuant to the information Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed CRL.REV.P. 119/2023 Page 1 of 6 received on 19.04.2020 that injury had been caused to two persons. On inquiry, it was found that the injured, namely, Devki Nandan and his wife – Asha were taken to the hospital. The statement of the injured – Asha was recorded wherein she stated that on 19.04.2020, her son-in-law/Dilip (accused) came to her house in a drunk condition and quarrelled with her and her husband. Thereafter, she went after her son-in-law, who then entered a factory and brought acid and threw it on her and her husband which led to injuries. The FIR was, thereafter, registered under Section 326A of the IPC. During the course of the treatment, Devki Nandan succumbed to injuries and Section 302 of the IPC was added.

4. During the course of the investigation, it was found that the godown from where the acid was procured by the accused –

Dilip, was owned by the respondent.

5. In the chargesheet, it is alleged that the respondent had kept the chemical in his factory without permission and without security and was sought to be charged under Section 285 of the IPC.

6. The learned ASJ noted that from the investigation carried out by the prosecution, no offence under Section 285 of the IPC was made out against the respondent. Section 285 of the IPC reads as under: -

“Whoever does, with fire or any combustible matter, any act so rashly or negligently as to endanger human life, or to be likely to cause hurt or injury to any other person, or knowingly or negligently omits to take such order with any fire or any combustible matter in his possession as is sufficient to guard against any probable danger to human life from such fire or combustible matter, shall be punished with imprisonment of either Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed CRL.REV.P. 119/2023 Page 2 of 6 description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.”

7. The prosecution has sought to charge the respondent for being negligible since the main accused entered the premises of the respondent to get the acid which was thrown on the victims which further led to the death of one of the victims.

8. It is submitted by learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State that the learned Trial Court has failed to appreciate that the acid was procured from the factory of the respondent and in terms of Section 285 of IPC, it was his responsibility to keep the combustible substance in a well-guarded manner.

9. Before delving into the facts of the present case, it is important to note that it is a settled law that the scope of interference by High Courts while exercising revisional jurisdiction is limited and ought to be exercised sparingly, in the interest of justice. The Hon’ble Apex Court, adverting to a catena of precedents, has considered and explained the scope of Section 397 of CrPC and noted that the test for quashing of charge in t