Crl.Rev.P.34/15, 3233/15 Page 1 of 7

$~28

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

RESERVED ON : AUGUST 28, 2015

DECIDED ON : SEPTEMBER 17, 2015

+

CRL.REV.P. 34/2015 & Crl.M.A.768/2015

RAJIV SHARMA

..... Petitioner

Through :

Mr.Abhijat with Mr.Mukesh Vatsa,

Mr.Puneet Mittal, Mr.Neeraj Dev

Gaur and Mr.Arush Sen Gupta,

Advocates.

versus

STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR

..... Respondents

Through :

Mr.Amit Ahlawat, APP.

Mr.M.R.Singh Sirodia, Advocate,

for R-2.

+

CRL.REV.P. 131/2015 & Crl.M.A.3233/2015

TEJESHWAR SHARMA

..... Petitioner

Through :

Mr.Abhijat with Mr.Mukesh Vatsa,

Mr.Puneet Mittal, Mr.Neeraj Dev

Gaur and Mr.Arush Sen Gupta,

Advocates.

versus

STATE(NCT OF DELHI) & ANR

..... Respondents

Through :

Mr.Amit Ahlawat, APP.

Mr.M.R.Singh Sirodia, Advocate,

for R-2.

Crl.Rev.P.34/15, 3233/15 Page 2 of 7

CORAM:

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG

S.P.GARG, J.

1.

Instant revision petitions have been preferred by the

petitioners to challenge the legality and correctness of an order dated

28.10.2014 by which they along with Sunder Bhati and Jitender Bhati

were charged for committing offences under Sections 452/506/308/34

IPC. Status report and complainant‟s response are on record.

2.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have

examined the file. FIR in question was lodged by an order dated 25.03.09

of learned Metropolitan Magistrate under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. In the

complaint case, it was averred by the complainant that he was residing at

House No.152, Ground Floor, Hari Nagar Ashram, New Delhi as a tenant

under one Jyotsna Das. On 22.02.1009 at about 9.45 p.m., the petitioners

along with other assailants while armed with dandas, iron rods, sticks and

revolver committed trespass. After breaking open the door of the house,

they started abusing him and his family members. The petitioners who

were armed with iron rods hit his son Pradeep on his head. They also hit

him on his right arm as a result of which he suffered fracture. Sunder

Bhati having a revolver hit him by a „danda‟. When his daughter

Crl.Rev.P.34/15, 3233/15 Page 3 of 7

attempted to intervene, she was also mercilessly beaten by the assailants.

All of them fled the spot after extending threats. Upon calling the Police

at 100, PCR van arrived and took the injured to AIIMS. The police,

however, did not take any action.

3.

The investigating agency recorded statements of witnesses

conversant with the facts. Upon completion of investigation, a charge-

sheet was filed against the petitioners and two others for committing

offences under Sections 451/506/324/34 IPC. By an order dated

16.10.2012 , learned ACMM took cognizance of the offence against the

petitioners and others for commission of the aforesaid offences. Being

aggrieved, the complainant filed revision petition No.202/12 which was

disposed of by an order dated 29.04.2014 by the learned District and

Sessions Judge and the petitioners and others were directed to be charged

under Section 308 IPC instead of Section 324 IPC. The case was

committed to the Court of Sessions. By the impugned order, the Trial

Court charged the petitioners for committing offences among others also

under Section 308 IPC.

4.

To proceed under Section 308 IPC, it is not essential that the

injury actually caused to the victim should be sufficient under ordinary

circumstances to cause the death of the person assaulted. What the Court

Crl.Rev.P.34/15, 3233/15 Page 4 of 7

has to see is whether the act, irrespective of its result, was done with the

intention or knowledge and under such circumstan