Page 1 of 8

CRL.REV.P. 40/2015

$~10 & 11

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%

Judgment delivered on: 14.02.2019

+

CRL.REV.P. 635/2014

JAI BHAGWAN

..... Petitioner

versus

THE STATE ( NCT OF DELHI )

..... Respondent

+

CRL.REV.P. 40/2015

STATE

..... Petitioner

versus

VINAY KUMAR

..... Respondent

Advocates who appeared in this case:

For the Petitioner :

Mr. R.N. Sharma with Mr. Deepak Kumar, Advocate for

the petitioner in Crl.Rev.Pet.635/2014

Mr. Hiren Sharma, APP for the State in Crl.Rev.P.40/2015

ASI Prem Ram Arya, PS Hari Nagar.

For the Respondent: Mr. Hiren Sharma, APP for the State in Crl.Rev.P.

635/2014

Mr.

Prem

Chhetri,

Advocate

for

respondent

in

Crl.Rev.P.40/2015

ASI Prem Ram Arya, PS Hari Nagar.

CORAM:-

HON’BLE MR JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA

JUDGMENT

SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J. (ORAL)

Crl.M.A.860/2015 (for condonation of delay) in Crl.Rev.

P.40/2015

2019:DHC:1023

Page 2 of 8

CRL.REV.P. 40/2015

For the reasons stated in the application, application is allowed.

The delay in filing the petition is condoned.

CRL.REV.P. 635/2014 & CRL.REV.P. 40/2015

1.

Both these petitions impugn common order-on-charge dated

28.07.2014.

2.

Petitioner in Crl.Rev.P.635/2014 i.e. Jai Bhagwan impugns

order-on-charge insofar as the Court holds that prima facie material is

available against him for framing of charge under Sections

120B/147/148/149/307/365/380 IPC.

3.

Crl.Rev.P. 40/2015 has been filed by the State impugning order

dated 28.07.2014, whereby Sub Inspector Vinay Kumar has been

discharged of all offences.

4.

Subject FIR No.672/2005, Police Station Hari Nagar, registered

under Sections 147/148/149/307/365/380/120B IPC was registered on

the complaint of one Mr. Bhimsen Ahuja alleging that he was the

owner and in possession of a property in which certain people barged

in with sticks and rods and attempted to evict him from the said

property. It was alleged that those persons physically assaulted him

and his wife and daughter. It was alleged that they even kidnapped his

son for the purposes of evicting them from the said property.

5.

It was alleged that the household goods of the property were

2019:DHC:1023

Page 3 of 8

CRL.REV.P. 40/2015

loaded in two tempo trucks and when the said persons were in the

process of removing the goods and fleeing, public intervened and

Police came and two of the accused were apprehended from the spot.

6.

It is the contention on behalf of Sub-Inspector Vinay Kumar

that he was also part of the police party which had apprehended the

two accused.

7.

As per the complainant, the attempt to evict the complainant

and take forcible possession was at the behest of some property dealer

with whom he had a dispute.

8.

The case of the prosecution is that the two accused, who were

apprehended from the spot, in their disclosure statements stated that

they had been approached by the property dealer for evicting the

complainant and they approached Sub Inspector Vinay Kumar, who

assured them that on payment of money he would not intervene in the

eviction process and rather would assist them in evicting the

complainant. They in their disclosure statement further stated that they

had taken the help of 4-5 people including Jai Bhagwan for the

purposes of eviction.

9.

Trial Court in the impugned order on charge, inter alia, held as

under:-

2019:DHC:1023

Page 4 of 8

CRL.REV.P. 40/2015

2019:DHC:1023

Page 5 of 8

CRL.REV.P. 40/2015

Bhagwan on 16-8-2014.”

10.

Insofar as Jai Bhagwan is concerned, The Trial Court in the

impugned order noted that the contents of chargesheet, statement of

witnesses and documents attached with the chargesheet had been

perused and on perusal of the same, the Court was of the view that the

ingredients of the subject offence were prima facie made out against

Jai Bhagw