Delhi High Court – Orders
Anil Kumar Saini & Anr vs The State ( Govt Of Nct Delhi) on 14 July, 2025
Author: Amit Sharma
Bench: Amit Sharma
$~50 & 51
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.REV.P. 488/2015
ANIL KUMAR SAINI & ANR .....Petitioners
Through: Mr.Akshay Bhandari and Mrs. Shriya
Gilhotra, Advocates (VC)
versus
THE STATE ( GOVT OF NCT DELHI) .....Respondent
Through: Mr.Pradeep Gahalot, APP for the State
alongwith SI Narender Singh, P.S.-
Chandni Mahal
51
+ CRL.REV.P. 541/2015 & CRL.M.A. 12359/2015
JALALUDDIN .....Petitioner
Through: Mr.Vishal Raj Sehijpal, Mr.Farooq
Chaudhary, Ms. Nahid and
Ms.Priyanka Handa, Advocates
versus
STATE GOVT OF NCT DELHI .....Respondent
Through: Mr.Pradeep Gahalot, APP for the State
alongwith SI Narender Singh, P.S.-
Chandni Mahal
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT SHARMA
ORDER
% 14.07.2025
1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.
2. The present petitions under Sections 397/401 of the CrPC read with
Section 482 of the CrPC have been filed assailing the impugned order on
charge dated 27.05.2015 passed by learned ASJ, Additional Sessions Judge-
05, Central, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi, in Sessions Case No. 47/15, arising out
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 16/07/2025 at 22:33:14
of FIR No. 86/2011, under Sections 304/337/338/120B/34 of the IPC,
registered at Police Station Chandni Mahal, whereby charges have been
framed against the petitioners for the offences punishable under Sections
304/325/323/34 of the IPC.
3. The case of the prosecution is that at about 08:00 PM, on 27.09.2011,
a PCR call was received regarding collapse of House No. 833, Chandni Mahal
and burial of several persons under the debris. Thereafter, ASI Pritam Singh
reached the spot and found that there was an under construction pillar at one
portion of the building and the remaining portion of the building had
collapsed. Rescue operations were started and the injured persons were sent
to LNJP Hospital. 23 persons were injured and 7 died in the said incident.
MLC of the injured as well as deceased persons were collected and
subsequently, the present FIR was registered. During the course of the
investigation, articles recovered from the debris were recovered and
statements of the witnesses and injured persons were recorded.
4. The investigation revealed the petitioners had purchased the aforesaid
property from one Sunita, and further gave the contract to Haza Jalaluddin,
i.e., the petitioner in CRL.REV.P. 541/2015 to demolish/construct the
aforesaid building, however, no permission was taken from the MCD nor any
site plan was approved by the MCD. It is further stated that no suggestion
from any structural/civil engineer was taken during the process of demolition.
The investigation further revealed that a notice dated 16.09.2011 was issued
to the petitioners, Anil Saini and Dharmender Grover, and a notice was served
to petitioner, Jalaluddin, at the spot on 25.09.2011 directing to stop the
construction/demolition. Despite the service of notice, the construction work
at the site was not stopped which had caused the incident. After the
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 16/07/2025 at 22:33:14
completion of investigation, chargesheet was filed before the Court of
competent jurisdiction. Thereafter, charges were framed for the offences
under Sections 304/325/323/34 of the IPC against the petitioners. The said
impugned order on charge dated 27.05.2015 has been challenged by way of
the present petition.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners, at the very outset, submits that the
matter may be remanded back to learned Trial Court as the learned ASJ while
passing the impugned order on charge has not applied mind as to how the
charge for the offence punishable under Section 304 of the IPC has been made
out in the facts and circumstances of the present case. It is further submitted
that the learned ASJ had not considered the report dated 23.11.2011 submitted
by the engineers of the MCD. He further submits that the impugned order on
charge is silent regarding the said report of MCD engineers. The said report
dated 23.11.2011 reads as under: –
“May please refer to the letter No. 1727/ACP/DIU/Central Distt.
Dated 17.11.2011. In this regard, it is submitted that on 27.09.2011 at
8.05 p.m. a complaint was received in the Zonal Control Room
regarding collapse of the above said property. MCD Officials reached
at site and it was found that the above said property was collapsed. On
local enquiry it was revealed that the said property was more than 75
years old and was structurally weak and owner I occupier of ground
floor was trying to change the doors and during the exercise the entire
building crashed and came down. However, the adjacent property No.
833, Chandni Mahal, was earlier inspected and found that owner
occupier was dismantling the old structure without any prior approval
from M.C.D. and the work was stopped by MCD officials instantly.
Accordingly, work stop notice was issued vide No. EE (B)/CZ/501,
dated 16.09.2011 on the assumption that construction can be raised by
owner/Builder. SHO, Chandni Mahal was also informed by way of
work stop notice that dismantling work has been stopped by M.C.D.
The Property No. 833, Collapsed due to only because of very old
structure.”
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 16/07/2025 at 22:33:14
6. It is also submitted that even the Crime Scene Report dated 16.11.2011
which was part of the charge-sheet has not been duly examined in proper
perspective.
7. Learned APP for the State fairly submits that the perusal of the
impugned order would show that there is no discussion as to how the offence
punishable under Section 304 of the IPC has been made out in the present
case.
8. Heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the record.
9. Learned ASJ while directing the framing of charge against the present
petitioners vide order dated 27.05.2015 had passed the following order: –
“1. Vide this order I shall dispose of the contentions put forth by
learned counsels for accused persons and that of learned Addl. PP for
the State on the point of charge.
2. It is the case of the prosecution that at about 8.00pm on 27.09.2011
a PCR call was received regarding collapse of House No.833,
Chandni Mahal and burial of several persons under the debris. Said
call was reduced into writing vide DD No.30A and matter was
initially investigated by ASI Pritam Singh who collected MLCS of
injured persons as per which injured Mohd. Mustaq, Sajid, Mohd.
Akib, Rafiqullah, Gaurav, Kumum and Suhaib sustained grievous
injuries whereas injured Ms. Afiya, Mohd. Faiz, Ms. Sauma, Bijender,
Mukesh, Ms. Sabiya, Ms. Munazia, Rameez, Shakir, Mohd Nasir,
Dishan, Suresh, Firoz, Salman, Mohd. Abid and Hanif sustained
simple injuries. IO also collected MLCS of 7 deceased namely Ms.
Munni Devi, Ms. Fatima, Ms. Shaukat Be, Arshad, Ms. Tabbussam,
Amand and that of one unknown.
3. During investigation it was revealed that accused Anil Kumar Saini
and accused Dharmender Grover had entered into a sale-purchase
agreement of a building of 70 sq. yards area at H. No.833, Chandni
Mahal, Delhi with one Smt. Sunita Sharma on 14.07.11 by an
agreement to sell/bayana as per which they paid Rs.15,40000/- to Smt.
Sunita as token money and agreed to pay remaining amount of
Rs.64,60000/- up to 14.11.2011.
4. Accused Anil Kumar and Dharmender Grover gave contract to
accused Hazi Jalaludin @ Jalal, a builder to demolish that 70 yardsThis is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 16/07/2025 at 22:33:14
portion and to construct flats there. During the demolition and
unauthorised construction at the 70 sq. yards portion, the adjacent
building of 65 sq. yds area Collapsed and consequently
aforementioned 7 persons lost their lives and 23 persons sustained
injuries. During investigation it was also revealed that a notice of AE
(building) Ward No.84, City Zone dt.16.9.2011 was issued to accused
Anil directing him to stop construction/demolition of building with
immediate effect. Accused Jalaluddin @ Jalal was also served with
the same notice on 25.9.2011 but despite service, the work was not
stopped which resulted into mishap.
5. It is argued on behalf of accused Anil and Dharmender that the
property, where allegedly construction was going on due to which
adjacent building collapsed, existed in the name of Smt. Sunita
Sharma on the date of incident and that accused persons have nothing
to do with the alleged construction. It is further contended by learned
counsel for accused Anil and Dharmender that the Agreement to
Sell/Bayana dated 14.7.2011 itself shows that only part
payment/bayana was made for property No. 833, Chandani Mahal and
the deal was to be concluded only after payment of remaining amount
on or before 14.11.2011. It is also contended on behalf of accused
Dharmender and Anil that since accused persons did not have right
over the said property till the entire consideration amount was paid.
they did not enter into any alleged agreement with accused Jallauddin
for any demolition or construction which allegedly resulted into
mishap.
6. It is argued on behalf of accused Jallaludin that he never entered
into any agreement qua alleged demolition or alleged construction on
property No. 833, Chandani Mahal with accused Anil Kumar and
Dharmender and that no such agreement has been placed. Thus
accused Jallauddin was not involved in construction and demolition
of the said property.
7. Per contra it is argued by Leaned Addl. PP for the State there is
sufficient material on record to show that accused Anil Kumar and
Dharmender entered into agreement with accused Jallauddin for
demolition and illegal construction on property No.833, Chandani
Mahal due to which the adjacent building collapsed and consequently
several persons died.
8. There is no force in the arguments putforth by learned counsels for
the accused. The perusal of agreement dated 14.7.2011 executed
between Smt. Sunita and accused Dharmender and Anil Kumar
clearly shows that it was mutually agreed between the parties (Smt.This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 16/07/2025 at 22:33:14
Sunita Sharma (hereinafter referred as first party) and accused
Dharmendra Grover and accused Anil Kumar (hereinafter referred as
second party) that CONSTRUCTION RIGHT WILL BE WITH
THE SECOND PARTY AND THE FIRST PARTY WILL NOT
HAVE ANY RESPONSIBILITY DURING THE COURSE OF
CONSTRUCTION OF THE SAID PROPERTY.
9. Insertion of such clause in the agreement dated 14.7.2011 itself is
sufficient enough to prima facie establish responsibility /
accountability of accused Dharmender and Anil Kumar qua
construction / demolition on property No.833 due to which the
adjacent building collapsed and mishap took place.
10. The contention of learned counsel for accused Jallauddin that there
is no document on record to show that accused Jallauddin was the
builder or that he was carrying demolition, work and alleged illegal
construction, is also devoid of any merit. Perusal of record clearly
reveals that notice dated 16.9.2011 of AE (building) Ward No.84, City
Zone was issued to accused Anil directing him to stop the construction
with immediate effect and same notice was served to accused
Jallauddin. Further as per statements of witnesses U/s 161 Cr.P.C.
more particularly that of Mohd. Jakir and Islammuddin, owners of
adjoining properties, it was accused Jallauddin who was carrying on
demolition and construction work on property no.833 as contractor.
11. Further the perusal of the crime scene report dated 16.11.2011
filed by the FSL, reveals that northern portion of the building i.e. the
portion under construction by the accused persons was found
demolished and some new pillars were under construction. It was also
observed that there were cracks on the remaining wall on the northern
side. The vigilance report dated 23.3.2012 also supports the findings
of the Crime Scene Report dated 16.11.11.
12. Otherwise also it is settled legal proposition that at the stage of
framing of charge, Court is not required to scrutinize the material
available on record meticulously.
13. The law is well settled that at the stage of the framing of charge,
strong suspicion and a prima facie case is sufficient to frame charge.
Otherwise also, at the stage of framing of charge the defence of the
accused can not be considered. In case titled as Rajendra Singh
Sethia Vs. State Crl.M. (M) No.1090 of 1994, 1995 III AD
(Delhi)162, it is categorically mentioned in para 13 that “A Court of
Law at the stage of framing of charge, would not go into the
defence of the accused, if any, put forward by him and considering
the same would not refuse to frame the charge as that is not theThis is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 16/07/2025 at 22:33:14
proper stage to consider the defence which is to be examined at
the time of the disposal of the case.”
14. In the most recent judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court
titled as State of Tamil Nadu Vs N. Suresh Rajan and Others
reported as 2014 Crl. L.J. 1444, the principles of material required
for framing of charge have been reiterated and it has been held that:
“True, it is that at the time of consideration of the
applications for discharge, the court can not act as a
mouth piece of the prosecution or act as a post-office
and may sift evidence in order to find out whether or not
the allegations made are groundless so as to pass an
order on discharge. It is trite that at the stage of
consideration of an application for discharge, the court
has to proceed with an assumption that the materials
brought on record by the prosecution are true and
evaluate the said materials and documents with a view
to find out whether the facts emerging therefrom taken
at their face value disclose the existence of all the
ingredients constituting the alleged offence. At this
stage, probative value of the materials has to be gone
into and the court is not expected to go deep into the
matter and hold that the materials would not warrant a
conviction. In our opinion, what needs to be considered
is whether there is a ground for presuming that the
offence has been committed and not whether a ground
for convicting the accused has been made out. To put it
differently, if the court thinks that the accused might
have committed the offence on the basis of the materials
on record on its probative value, it can frame the charge;
though for conviction, the court has to come to the
conclusion that the accused has committed the offence.
The law does not permit a mini trial at this stage.
Reference in this connection can be made to a recent
decision of this Court in the case of Sheoraj Singh
Ahlawat & Ors. V.State of Utttar Pradesh & Anr., AIR
2013 SC 52:(2012 AIR SW6171), in which, after
analyzing various decisions on the point, this Court
endorsed the following view taken in Onkar Nath
Mishra V.State (NCT of Delhi) (2008) 2 SCC 561: (AIR
2008 SC (Supp) 2014: 2008 AIR SCW 96): It is trite
that at the stage of framing of charge the court isThis is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 16/07/2025 at 22:33:14
required to evaluate the material and documents on
record with a view to finding out if the facts emerging
therefrom, taken at their face value, disclosed the
existence of all the ingredients constituting the alleged
offence. At this stage, the court is not expected to go
deep into the probative value of the material on record.
What needs to be considered is whether there is a
ground for presuming that the offence has been
committed and not a ground for convicting the accused
has been made out. At this stage, even strong suspicion
founded on material which leads the court to form a
presumptive opinion as to the existence of the factual
ingredients constituting the offence alleged would
justify the framing of charge against the accused in
respect of the commission of that offence.”
15. In State of Orissa Vs. Saroj Sahoo 2006(1) Apex Criminal 63
(SC) Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that –
“At the stage of framing of charge court has to only
prima facie be satisfied about existence of sufficient
ground for proceeding against the accused. For this
limited purpose Court can evaluate material and
documents on record but it cannot appreciate
evidence. The court is not required to appreciate
evidence to conclude whether the materials
produced are sufficient or not for convicting the
accused.”
16. In the case in hand accused persons neither sought prior
permission of authorities concerned nor took due care and
caution while executing alleged demolition and construction work
due to which the mishap occurred. Even no site plan was got
approved from MCD and no guidance of any structural / Civil
Engineer was taken.
17. In view of the above observation, facts and circumstances of the
case and case laws cited above, I am of the opinion that on the basis
of the material available on record, prima facie case for commission
of offence punishable U/ss 304/325/323/34 IPC is made out against
all the three accused. All accused be charged accordingly.
However, observation made herein shall have no bearings on the
merits of the case.”
10. Perusal of the aforesaid order shows that learned ASJ has not examined
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 16/07/2025 at 22:33:14
as to how the facts of the present case would satisfy the ingredients for the
charge of the offence punishable under Section 304 of the IPC.
11. Learned Trial Court, in the aforesaid order, apart from noting the fact
that the petitioners had not sought the permission of concerned authorities and
nor had taken due care while executing the alleged demolition, proceeded to
frame charges for the offences punishable under Sections 304, 325, 323/34 of
the IPC against the present petitioners. The aforesaid order is completely
silent as to how the ingredients of Section 304 of the IPC as well as other
Sections which are noted in the impugned order are satisfied in the facts of
the present case. The impugned order relies on certain judgments of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court with regard to parameters to be considered while
passing an order on charge. There is no dispute to the said proposition,
however, the law is also well-settled that the learned Trial Court while passing
an order on charge has to be prima facie satisfied with regard to satisfaction
of the ingredients of the offence alleged against the concerned accused. In the
present case, there is absolutely no discussion with regard to the ingredients
of Sections 304, 325, 323/34 of the IPC in the impugned order and as to how
the material on record satisfies those ingredients.
12. In view of the above, the impugned order dated 27.05.2015 is set aside
and the case is remanded back to the learned Trial Court for fresh
consideration on the point of charge. Learned Trial Court after hearing learned
counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned APP for the State shall pass
a fresh order on point of charge after examining the material placed on record
along with the charge-sheet.
13. Needless to state that, nothing mentioned hereinabove, is an opinion on
the merits of the case and any observations made herein are only for the
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 16/07/2025 at 22:33:14
purpose of the present petitions.
14. Learned Trial Court shall determine the order on charge independent of
any observations made in the present order.
15. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of accordingly.
16. Copy of the order be sent to the concerned learned Trial Court for
necessary information and compliance.
17. Order be uploaded on the website of this Court forthwith.
AMIT SHARMA, J
JULY 14, 2025/kr/ns
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 16/07/2025 at 22:33:14
[ad_1]
Source link