Delhi District Court
Deepu Chauhan vs Poonam Prashar on 4 June, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SH. PURSHOTAM PATHAK, ASJ-05,
SOUTH DISTRICT, SAKET COURTS : DELHI
DLST010102452024
Cr Rev/372/2024
DEEPU CHAUHAN Vs. POONAM PRASHAR
Deepu Chauhan
S/o Ramesh Chauhan
R/o RZ-P-11, Nanda Block,
Mahavir Enclave, Palam Village,
South-West, Delhi-45 ........ REVISIONIST
VERSUS
POONAM PRASHAR
D/O SH. S. S. PRASHAR
R/O 233, Mohamadpur,
R. K. Puram, New Delhi ...........RESPONDENT
DATE OF INSTITUTION : 04.09.2024
ARGUMENTS HEARD ON : 04.06.2025
DATE OF JUDGMENT : 04.06.2025
JUDGMENT
1. The present criminal revision has been filed against
the impugned order on charge dated 18.07.2023, passed by
Ld. MM-01, Saket Court, New Delhi in MC No. 24 of
2011, titled as ‘Poonam Parashar vs. Virender Singh‘, for
framing of charge against the revisionist for offence u/s
448 IPC.
Digitally signed by PURSHOTTAM PURSHOTTAM PATHAK PATHAK Date: 2025.06.05 15:58:46 +0530
Cr Rev/372/2024 DEEPU CHAUHAN Vs. POONAM PRASHAR Page No. 1 of 14
2. The facts in brief of the revision are that a complaint
no. 24/2011 was filed by the complainant/ respondent u/s
200 Cr.P.C. against the revisionist, wherein she stated that
she is the tenant of co-accused Virender Singh in house no.
383, Type-1 Sector 2, R. K. Puram, New Delhi for last
three years, since 01.03.2009. She claimed that on
09.04.2011 at about 4.30 PM, when she came back after
giving home tuition, the accused no. 2 & 3, who were
sitting near Jhuggi no. 2 started abusing her without any
reason. She also alleged that on 11.04.2011, when she
came back to her house, she found that accused no.1 along
with accused no. 2 and 3 had forcibly broken the lock of
her premises and had entered in the said house.
3. Thereafter, complainant made a complaint to police
and when no action was taken by the police, the
complainant filed the complaint u/s 200 Cr.P.C. After pre-
summoning evidence, vide order dated 28.05.2011, all the
accused persons were summoned u/s 448 IPC and accused
Ajay was summoned u/s 509 IPC also. Consequently, after
pre-charge evidence, Ld. Trial Court vide impugned order
found sufficient material to frame charge against accused/
revisionist u/s 448 IPC.
4. The relevant observations of trial court are
reproduced as under:-
“I have given my careful thought to the rival submissions
and have carefully perused the complaint, the pre charge evidence
as well as the documents which have been relied upon by the
complainant in support of her case.
From the perusal of contents of complaint, accompanying
documents as well as pre charge evidence of complainant CW2 andCr Rev/372/2024 DEEPU CHAUHAN Vs. POONAM PRASHAR Page No. 2 of 14 PURSHOTTAM
PATHAKDigitally signed by
PURSHOTTAM
PATHAK
Date: 2025.06.05
15:58:51 +0530
her friend CW1, the offence under Section 448 IPC r/w section 34
IPC is made out against all the accused persons for having
trespassed into the property in possession of the complainant i.e. the
tenanted premises and for changing locks thereof after having
broken the locks of the complainant on 11.04.2011.
Secondly charge of offence u/s 509 IPC is made out against
accused Ajay for having passed remark of “…..Haan ye to dhanda
hi karti hai…” on 09.04.2011 to the complainant.
No concrete allegations have been levelled by the
complainant CW2 in her evidence regarding the offence u/s 506 IPC
and even a perusal of the complaint and annexed documents show
that no specific date, time or threats have been elicited. Accordingly,
all the accused persons are liable to be discharged for offence u/s
509 IPC.
As far as the arguments of Ld. Counsel for complainant for
invoking the charge of theft against the accused no. 1 for having
given a government property on rent in an unauthorized manner to
the complainant are concerned, the same are not tenable. It might
be a civil wrong or a breach of contract with the government and the
government servant may be liable for action for having sublet the
property without authorization, however, it is incomprehensible as to
how it will amount to theft u/s 379/380 IPC.
Similarly, as far as the arguments of Ld. counsel for
complainant for invoking the charge against the accused no.1 for
section 380 IPC for him not having returned her security amount of
Rs. 30,000/- and for taking away her valuable documents and
belongings are concerned, the same are not tenable as the ingredient
of having ‘moved’ any movable property is not satisfied from the
allegations levelled as it has nowhere been stated that the accused
persons took away/ moved the movable properties of the
complainant. Accordingly, the offence u/s 380 IPC is not attracted.
Accordingly, all the accused persons are charged for the
offence u/s 448/34 IPC. Accused Ajay is charged for offence u/s 509
IPC.
Separate charge be framed against the accused persons on
the NDOH. ”
5. Being aggrieved by the order dated 18.07.2023,
revisionist has preferred this revision petition on following
grounds:-
i. that Ld. Trial Court has erred in passing the
impugned order as charge of criminal tress pass by a
person claiming to be tenant is not maintainable in the
absence of proof of tenancy. Digitally
signed by
PURSHOTTAM
PURSHOTTAM PATHAK
PATHAK Date:
2025.06.05
15:58:54
+0530Cr Rev/372/2024 DEEPU CHAUHAN Vs. POONAM PRASHAR Page No. 3 of 14
ii. that Ld. Trial court failed to consider where the
allegations made and appeared from the record
constitute a ‘civil wrong’ with no ‘element of
criminality’, the court may be justified in discharging
the accused.
iii. that Ld. Trial Court failed to consider the fact that,
whether the uncontroverted allegations as made from
the record of the case and the documents submitted
therewith prima facie establish the offence or not.
iv. that the basic ingredient of Section 441 and 448 of
the Indian Penal Code are not even fulfilled in the facts
of the present case in as much as there are no
allegations against the petitioner in the complaint dated
12.04.2011.
v. that Ld. Trial court erred in passing the order as the
applicant has been made an accused in the present case
merely on the basis of the complaints and statements of
complainant i.e. PW-2 and PW-1, who is friend of
complainant, without there being any iota of evidence
against the petitioner.
vi. that Ld. Trial court proceeded for framing charge
against the petitioner vide impugned order dated
18.07.2023, without appreciating the facts on record
and the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court
of India and various High Courts.
vii. that Ld. Trial Court has failed to consider the facts
that the alleged landlord is allottee of the property in
Cr Rev/372/2024 DEEPU CHAUHAN Vs. POONAM PRASHAR Page No. 4 of 14 Digitally
signed by
PURSHOTTAM
PURSHOTTAM PATHAK
PATHAK Date:
2025.06.05
15:58:57
+0530
question as the same was allotted to alleged landlord till
his job.
viii. that Ld. Trial Court has failed to consider the fact
that the respondent has not submitted any proof of her
tenancy in the property in question.
ix. that the Hon’ble Trial court has failed to consider
that without proof of residence/ tenancy of the
respondent in the property in question, the offence of
tress pass defined u/s 441 IPC cannot be made out.
6. Ld. Counsel for the revisionist in addition to above
grounds has argued that no offence u/s 448 IPC is made
out against the revisionist. It is argued that the Ld. Trial
Court erred in law by passing order on charge against the
revisionist, thereby framing charge u/s 448 IPC, without
considering the facts and circumstances of the case, as well
as the records available. It is argued that the dispute
between the parties is civil in nature and the allegation of
complainant of criminal tress pass are not maintainable.
On the strength of these arguments, revisionist prays for
setting aside of the impugned order.
7. Per contra, Ld. Counsel for respondent argued that
there is no infirmity in the impugned order as the same has
been passed keeping in view the facts and materials
available on record. The framing of charges against the
petitioner was done after due consideration of the evidence
on record, including the respondent’s complaint,
testimonies of witnesses and supporting documents. He
submitted that the revisionist committed unlawful acts of
Cr Rev/372/2024 DEEPU CHAUHAN Vs. POONAM PRASHAR Page No. 5 of 14 PURSHOTTAM
PATHAK
Digitally signed by
PURSHOTTAM
PATHAK
Date: 2025.06.05
15:59:00 +0530
trespass on 11.04.2011 when he along with the alleged
landlord and others, unlawfully broke open the lock of the
respondent’s tenanted house and placed their own lock on
the premises. He submitted that the revisionist attempt to
raise the issue of subletting a government accommodation
is irrelevant to the criminal charge of house trespass.
Furthermore, it is submitted that the revision petition filed
by the petitioner is not maintainable as it is devoid of merit
and has been filed solely to delay the course of justice.
8. Ld. Counsel for the respondent further argued that
the revision petition is otherwise also not maintainable as
same has been filed beyond the period of limitation. He
submitted that the revisionist was represented by his
counsel Sh. M. S. Karwasara and Mr. Sohan Lal, before
the Ld. Trial Court, who were regularly appearing in the
matter on his behalf and were well aware of the
proceedings of the said case. He submitted that on
18.07.2023, 09.10.2023, 18.12.2023, and 21.02.2024, the
revisionist was represented in the court through the said
counsel. He further submitted that the revisionist was
having the knowledge of the progress of the case before
the Trial Court as he was represented through his counsel,
who was also representing him before Hon’ble High Court
of Delhi. Ld. counsel for the respondent to corroborate his
contentions has relied upon judgment:-Jan Chetna Jagriti
Avom Shaikshanik Vikas Manch & Ors. Vs. Anand Raj
Jhawar Sole Proprietor of M/s RR Agrotech CM Appl.
8976/2025, Kadam Brothers & Developers Vs. Unimesh
Ganpatrao Sathe, 2015 SCC OnLine NCDRC 533 and
Digitally
Cr Rev/372/2024 DEEPU CHAUHAN Vs. POONAM PRASHAR Page No. 6 of 14 signed by
PURSHOTTAM
PURSHOTTAM PATHAK
PATHAK Date:
2025.06.05
15:59:05
+0530
M. Selvi V. Anna University Staff Quarters Association
2021 SCC Online MAD 7380.
9. I have heard the rival contentions. I have gone
through the reply filed by the respondent and also perused
the Trial Court record.
10. The revisionist has also moved an application for
condonation of delay. It is stated that the revisionist was to
file the revision petition against the order dated 18.07.2023
within the prescribed period of time however, same has
been filed after a delay of 322 days. It is further stated that
the delay was caused as the revisionist had to go to his
hometown in Alwar, Rajasthan to take care of his
grandmother, who is suffering from various old age
ailments and is bedridden. It is further submitted that the
delay in filing the present revision was neither intentional
nor deliberate but is inadvertent due to unavoidable
circumstances.
11. On the other hand Ld. Counsel for the respondent
has stated that there is a long delay in filing the revision
petition. The only grace period which would have been
available to the revisionist would be the time taken for
obtaining certified copies of order dated 18.07.2023, as
passed by the Ld. Magistrate.
12. A perusal of Trial court record shows that the
revisionist was summoned on 28.06.2011. Thereafter, pre-
charge evidence was closed on 03.01.2023 and the matter
was listed for arguments on charge. On 18.07.2023, order
on charge was passed in presence of all the accused
Cr Rev/372/2024 DEEPU CHAUHAN Vs. POONAM PRASHAR Page No. 7 of 14 Digitally signed
by
PURSHOTTAM
PURSHOTTAM PATHAK
PATHAK
Date:
2025.06.05
15:59:08 +0530
persons. Now the revisionist has challenged the order
dated 18.07.2023. The present revision petition was filed
on 04.09.2024. As per the mandate of Article 131 of Indian
Limitation Act, the present revision petition could have
been filed within 90 days from the date of passing of the
impugned order but the same has been filed on 04.09.2024.
Thus, there is delay of 322 days in filing the revision
petition. It was encumbent on the part of revisionist to
show sufficient cause for seeking condonation of delay of
322 days in filing of revision.
13. In case of “Deepali Sharma Vs. Fedral Bank Ltd.
RFA No. 112/2010″ passed by Hon’ble High Court of
Delhi, the Hon’ble Court was pleased to dismiss the
application for condonation of delay in view of vague
averments, negligence, in view of absence of sufficient
cause and lackadaisical approach of the litigant in pursuing
the appeal.
14. Their Lordship of Punjab & Haryana in case,
“Tarawamto Vs. State of Haryana, AIR 1995, Punjab &
Haryana 32″ was pleased to hold that ” the person
invoking jurisdiction of court for condonation of delay is
required to satisfy the court that he was unable to present
his appeal in time on account of some misadventure or
incapacity or circumstances beyond of his control or such
sufficient cause, which bonafidely prevented him in filing
the appeal, within prescribed limitation”.
15. Their Lordship of Supreme Court in case of
“Balwant Singh Vs. Jaswant Singh AIR 2010, S.C 3043″
Cr Rev/372/2024 DEEPU CHAUHAN Vs. POONAM PRASHAR Page No. 8 of 14 Digitally
signed by
PURSHOTTAM
PURSHOTTAM PATHAK
PATHAK Date:
2025.06.05
15:59:12
+0530
was pleased to hold that “approaching to the court with
unclean hands, itself is a ground for rejection of
application U/sec. 5 of The Indian Limitation Act. It is
further held that there should be sufficient cause for
condonation of delay and delay should not be on account
of dilatory tactics, want of bonafide, deliberate inaction or
negligence and further held that liberal approach does not
mean injustice to the opposite party.
16. Similarly, in case “Collector of Central Excise
Madras Vs. M. Md. Bilal and Company (2000)10 S.C.C.
63″, their Lordship of Supreme Court was pleased to
dismiss the application for condonation of delay in view of
absence of satisfactory or cogent explanation for delay.
17. Their Lordship of High Court of Delhi in case “Shiv
Kumari Vs. Choudhary Prem Singh and Ors.
165(2009) DLT 307″ was also pleased to dismiss the
application for condonation of delay in the absence of
sufficient cause for delay.
18. Thus, from the law enumerated in the above
judgments, it is crystal clear that it was obligatory on the
part of the petitioner to show some sufficient cause, which
bonafidely prevented to the revisionist to file the present
revision within time. The Ld. Counsel for the revisionist
has submitted that the revisionist could not file the revision
petition within the limitation period as he has to go to his
native place to take care of his grand mother. Trial court
record reveals that the revisionist after passing of order on
charge on 18.07.2023, regularly appeared either in person
Cr Rev/372/2024 DEEPU CHAUHAN Vs. POONAM PRASHAR Page No. 9 of 14
PURSHOTTAM
PATHAK
Digitally signed by
PURSHOTTAM
PATHAK
Date: 2025.06.05
15:59:16 +0530
or through his counsel on each and every date i.e.
28.08.2023, 09.10.2023, 01.11.2023, 18.12.2023,
15.02.2024, 21.02.2024, 20.03.2024, 22.05.2024 and
07.08.2024, before filing the revision petition on
04.09.2024. Meaning thereby the revisionist was aware
about the order on charge from the date when the same
was passed. The reason given by Ld. Counsel does not
inspire any confidence as revisionist was well represented
by a counsel before Ld. Trial court and nothing stopped
him from engaging the same counsel or any other counsel
for filing the revision petition. Revisionist did not
challenge the order within the prescribed period of 90 days
despite having knowledge and he filed the revision petition
assailing the impugned order on 04.09.2024, after a long
delay of 322 days, when the matter has already proceeded
for complainant evidence. The Ld counsel for the
revisionist could not explain why did he not file the
revision within the limitation period. This petition has been
filed much beyond the period of limitation and said
grounds are not sufficient to condone the delay. I
accordingly find that the present revision petition is not
maintainable having been filed beyond the period of
limitation.
19. Even on merit, the law on the question of
consideration of charge is well settled. If the criminal
court, on consideration of the material submitted with the
charge sheet finds that a grave suspicion exists about the
involvement of the accused in the crime alleged, it is
expected to frame the charge and put the accused on trial.
Digitally signed
Cr Rev/372/2024 DEEPU CHAUHAN Vs. POONAM PRASHAR Page No. 10 of 14
by
PURSHOTTAM
PURSHOTTAM PATHAK
PATHAK
Date:
2025.06.05
15:59:19 +0530
At such initial stage of the trial, the truth, veracity and
effect of the evidence which the prosecutor proposes to
adduce are not required to be meticulously judged, nor is
any weight to be attached to the probable defence of the
accused.
20. In the case of State of Bihar Vs. Ramesh Singh,
AIR 1977 SC 2018 Hon’ble Supreme Court observed as
under :
“It is not obligatory for the judge at that stage of the trial to
consider in any detail and weigh in a sensitive balance whether the
facts, if proved, would be incompatible with the innocence of the
accused or not. The standard of test and judgment which is to be
finally applied before recording a finding regarding the guilt or
otherwise of the accused is not exactly to be applied at the stage of
deciding the matter under S. 227 or S. 228 of the Code. At that stage
the court is not to see whether there is sufficient ground for
conviction of the accused or whether the trial is sure to end in his
conviction. XXXXX Strong suspicion against the accused, if the
matter remains in the region of suspicion, cannot take the place of
proof of his guilt at the conclusion of the trial. But at the initial stage
if there is a strong suspicion which leads the Court to think that
there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed an
offence then it is not open to the Court to say that there is no
sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. XXXXX If the
scales of pan as to the guilt or innocence of the accused are
something like even at the conclusion of the trial, then, on the theory
of benefit of doubt the case is to end in his acquittal. But if, on the
other hand, it s so at the initial stage of making an order under S.
227 or S. 228, then in such a situation ordinarily and generally the
order which will have to be made will be one under S. 228 and not
under S. 227.”
21. Further, in State of Delhi v. Gyan Devi & Others,
[(2008) SCC 239], Hon’ble Supreme Court reiterated that
at the stage of framing of charge, the Trial Court is not to
examine and access in detail the materials placed on record
by the prosecution nor is it for the court to consider the
Digitally
signed by
PURSHOTTAM
PURSHOTTAM PATHAK
PATHAK Date:
2025.06.05
15:59:22
+0530Cr Rev/372/2024 DEEPU CHAUHAN Vs. POONAM PRASHAR Page No. 11 of 14
sufficiency of the materials to establish the offence alleged
against the accused persons.
22. Similar are the observations in “State of Bihar Vs.
Ramesh Singh, AIR 1977 SC 2018 Hon’ble Supreme
Court”; “Union of India Vs. Prafulla Kumar Samal
1979 Crl. L.J.154, Hon’ble Supreme Court” & ” State
of M.P Vs. S. B Johari 2000 Crl. L. J. 944 (SC)”.
23. Illumined by the case law referred to herein above,
this Court has adverted to the entire record of the case.
24. Ld. Counsel for revisionist has contended that there
are no allegations against the revisionist in complaint dated
12.04.2011. However, I do not find any force in such
contention as in the said complaint, the complainant has
alleged that for last three years she lives in House no. 383,
Type-1 Sector 2, R. K. Puram, New Delhi. She in her
statement as CW-2 has specifically stated that on
11.04.2011, her landlord Virender Singh along with
accused Ajay Kumar Khanna and the revisionist broke
open the lock of door of her house. Ld. counsel has also
contended that there are several contradictions in the
statement of CW-1 and CW-2 which Ld. Trial Court did
not considered at the time of framing of charge. The Trial
Court also not verified as to the landlord, tenant
relationship between the parties.
25. It is a settled law that at the stage of consideration
on charge, there is no requirement of evaluating the
evidence or final probability of case projected by
Digitally signed
by
PURSHOTTAM
PURSHOTTAM PATHAK
PATHAK
Date:
Cr Rev/372/2024 DEEPU CHAUHAN Vs. POONAM PRASHAR Page No. 12 of 14
2025.06.05
15:59:26 +0530
complainant. The complainant has specifically deposed
about the incident in her pre-charge evidence. Hence, at
this stage, it is sufficient if the order shows that trial court
has applied its mind to the facts of case and material on
record. Neither the defence of accused nor the authenticity
of claim of prosecution is required to be decided at the
stage of the charge. The arguments advanced by Ld.
Counsel for the revisionist and averments made in revision
touch the probable value of claim made by both the sides
which cannot be done at the stage of charge.
26. The grounds taken by the revisionist call for
adjudication on pure questions of fact which may be
adequately adjudicated upon only by the trial court and
while doing so, even the submissions made on points of
law can also be more appropriately gone into by the trial
court in this case. This Court does not deem it proper, and
therefore, cannot be persuaded to have a pre-trial before
the actual trial begins. A threadbare discussion of various
facts and circumstances, as they emerge from the
allegations made against the revisionist, is being purposely
avoided by the Court for the reason, lest the same might
cause any prejudice to either side during trial. But it shall
suffice to observe that in view of the material available on
record including statement of complainant, a grave
suspicion arises against revisionist for having committed
offence under section 448 IPC and therefore, there is no
jurisdictional error or patent illegality in the impugned
order and same does not call for any interference by this
Court.
Digitally
signed by
PURSHOTTAM
PURSHOTTAM PATHAK
PATHAK Date:
2025.06.05
15:59:29
+0530
Cr Rev/372/2024 DEEPU CHAUHAN Vs. POONAM PRASHAR Page No. 13 of 14
27. In view of the above discussion, the revision petition
being filed beyond the period of limitation and also being
devoid of any merit stands dismissed.
28. TCR be sent back to court concerned along with
copy of present judgment.
29. Revision petition be consigned to record room
after due compliance. Digitally signed
by PURSHOTTAM
PURSHOTTAM PATHAK
PATHAK Date: 2025.06.05
15:59:33 +0530
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT (PURSHOTAM PATHAK)
TODAY ON THIS ASJ-05(SOUTH)
04th DAY OF JUNE, 2025 SAKET COURTS: N.D
(This judgment contains total 14 signed pages)
Cr Rev/372/2024 DEEPU CHAUHAN Vs. POONAM PRASHAR Page No. 14 of 14