Delhi District Court
Rajeev Behl vs The State Of Nct Of Delhi on 20 January, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SH. PURSHOTAM PATHAK,
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-05,
SOUTH DISTRICT, SAKET COURTS : DELHI
DLST010022162024
Cr Rev/112/2024
RAJEEV BEHL Vs. THE STATE OF NCT OF DELHI
Rajeev Behl
S/o Mr. S. P. Behl
R/o B-29,
Pamposh Enclave, G. K. 1,
New Delhi-110048 ............... REVISIONIST
VERSUS
State of NCT of Delhi
Through SHO, Police Station - Hauz Khas,
A/58, Police Station Colony, Block A,
Mayfair Gardens,
Hauz Khas, New Delhi-110016 .............. RESPONDENT
DATE OF INSTITUTION : 16.03.2024
ARGUMENTS HEARD ON : 31.08.2024
DATE OF JUDGMENT : 20.01.2025
JUDGMENT
1. By this order I shall decide the revision filed by the
revisionist against the order dated 05.02.2024, passed by
Ld. MM (06) South/Saket, Delhi on an application u/s 239
Cr.P.C., moved by the revisionist for his discharge and by
Digitally
signed by
which the revisionist has been charged for the commission
PURSHOTTAM
PURSHOTTAM PATHAK
PATHAK Date:
2025.01.20
17:12:39
+0530CR Rev No. 112 of 2024 Rajeev Behl Vs. The State of NCT of Delhi Page no. 1 of 16
of offences punishable under Section 186/188/353 IPC.
2. The brief facts giving rise to filing of the present
revision are that on 08.05.2021, the complainant, HC
Naresh Chand, Ct. Dalip and other picket staff of PS-
Hauz Khas were performing their checking duty at outer
ring road in front of Laxman Public School. It is alleged
that during the checking at about 7.15 PM a blue BMW car
having registration No. HP-15E-5559 was signalled to
stop, but the driver of BMW car instead of stopping the
car, speedly drove his car towards IIT Flyover, due to
which the complainant was narrowely saved and Ct. Amit
fell on the ground. The SHO and the Bravo, who were also
present there at the time of incident followed the car and
they caught the BMW car under the IIT flyover near petrol
pump red light. There the driver of the car misbehaved
with the police officials. It is alleged that the revisionist
also violated the prohibitory order under section 144 CrPC
issued by ACP Hauz Khas vide notification no. 3270-
3669/SO-ACP/HK New Delhi in view of outbreak of
COVID- 19 pandemic.
3. On these allegations the police registered the FIR for
the offences punishable under Section 186/188/353 IPC.
4. After investigation charge-sheet under Section
186/188/353 IPC was filed and revisionist was summoned
by the Ld. Trial Court.
PURSHOTTAM
PATHAK
5. Ld. Trial Court vide impugned order dated Digitally signed by
PURSHOTTAM
PATHAK
05.02.2024 dismissed the application u/s 239 CrPC filed Date: 2025.01.20
17:12:44 +0530
CR Rev No. 112 of 2024 Rajeev Behl Vs. The State of NCT of Delhi Page no. 2 of 16
by the revisionist on finding sufficient material to frame
charge against the accused for offences u/s 186/188/353
IPC.
6. For the sake of convenience the relevant portion of
impugned order passed by the Ld. Trial Court is
reproduced as under:
“Perusal of the record shows that the chargesheet has been filed
against accused under section 186/188/353 IPC. Indeed, section
195(1)(a) CrPC bars the power of court to take cognizance of
offence u/s 186 & 188 IPC except on complaint in writing of the
public servant concerned or some other officer to whom he is
administratively subordinate. The cognizance upon complaint is
taken by court under section 190(1)(a) CrPC whereas the cognizance
is taken on police report under section 190(1)(b) CrPC. In the
present case police report is filed under the section 186/188/353 IPC.
For taking cognizance on offence under section 186 and 188 IPC,
complaint had to be filed by the public servant concerned. In the
present case complaint under section 195 CrPC of ACP Hauz Khas
dated 14.06.2021 is already placed on record for initiating
prosecution of accused for said offences. There is no bar of section
195 CrPC for taking cognizance of offence of section 353 IPC.
It is also pertinent to mention that it is settled law that when both
cognizable and non cognizable offence is alleged against accused
and chargesheet is filed under two or more such offences of which at
least one is cognizable, the offences shall be tried as if it is
cognizable offence. Section 353 IPC is cognizable is nature. Even
though filing of complaint is quintessential for prosecuting under
section 186 and 188 IPC, but the fact that offence under 353 which is
cognizable offence is also alleged against accused, the prosecution as
per police report can very well lie against him.
Prima facie allegations against accused shows that accused was
driving the BMW car on the alleged day of incident and while he
was asked to stop his car at picket for checking, he suddenly raised
the speed of car due to which Ct. Dilip and Ct. Amit sustained
injuries. While he was chased by the police officials, he started
misbehaving with them. Further there are also allegation against him
that he had violated the notification no. 245-344/R/ACP/HK dt
06.04.2021. Thus, there are sufficient ground for framing charge
under section 186/188/353 IPC. The contention of ld counsel for
accused is that no MLC of victim is on record. In this regard it is Digitally
signed byworth mentioning that under section 353 IPC, mere use of criminal
PURSHOTTAM
PURSHOTTAM PATHAK
PATHAK Date:
2025.01.20
17:12:48
+0530force against public servant is sufficient to initiate prosecution. Even
though MLC is not on record but the very fact that allegations ofCR Rev No. 112 of 2024 Rajeev Behl Vs. The State of NCT of Delhi Page no. 3 of 16
usage of criminal force is evident from bare perusal of record, the
contention of accused is devoid of merits.
It is also the contention of accused that his sister as severely unwell
and he went to take medicines and is falsely implicated in the case.
The said justification can be raised by the accused at the stage of
defence evidence and is not maintainable at this stage.
Thus there are sufficient ground for framing charge against accused
under section 186/188/353 IPC.
The application for discharge moved on behalf of accused is
dismissed.”
7. Being aggrieved by the impugned order, accused has
preferred this revision on following grounds:-
i. that vide order dated 23.03.2022, Ld. Trial
Court had only taken cognizance of the said
chargesheet and not of the complaint filed by the
officer, whose order had been violated under
Section 186/188 IPC.
ii. that the Ld. Trial Court has erroneously held
that in the present case, when both cognizable and
non-cognizable offence is alleged against the
accused and a chargesheet is filed under two or
more such offences of which at least one is
cognizable, the offences shall be tried as if it is a
cognizable offence.
iii. that the Ld. Trial Court ignored the material
evidence and vide order dated 23.03.2022, had only
taken cognizance on the police report and not on
the complaint of ACP, Hauz Khas filed along with
the said chargesheet. PURSHOTTAM
PATHAKDigitally signed by
PURSHOTTAMiv. that the Ld. Trial Court has erroneously held
PATHAK
Date: 2025.01.20
17:12:51 +0530CR Rev No. 112 of 2024 Rajeev Behl Vs. The State of NCT of Delhi Page no. 4 of 16
that the allegations of usage of criminal force are
evident from a bare perusal of the record and that
mere use of criminal force against public servants
is sufficient to initiate prosecution, however, there
is nothing on record to establish that the petitioner
has assaulted the public servant or used criminal
force with the intention to prevent or deter the
public servant from discharging his duty as such
public servant.
v. that in the said chargesheet, there is not even
a single averment which specifies any use of force
or assault against any public servant or
intentionally being stopped or deterred from
performing official duties.
vi. that there is no prima facie evidence against
the petitioner, such as video recording or photo of
the subject matter, apart from the police officers,
which shows that the police officers have
concocted this case against the petitioner.
vii. that the Ld. Trial Court did not appreciate the
fact that the IO did not call the petitioner even once
to record his side of the story or the reason for the
petitioner’s movement which establishes that the
whole investigation has been done only to
implicate the petitioner in a false case.
viii. that even the statement of the wife of the PATHAK
Digitally
signed by
PURSHOTTAM
PURSHOTTAM PATHAK
Date:
2025.01.20
17:12:55
+0530petitioner, who is the prime witness in the said case
CR Rev No. 112 of 2024 Rajeev Behl Vs. The State of NCT of Delhi Page no. 5 of 16
was not recorded by the IO establishing the fact
that the investigation has been done in a prejudicial
manner, to array the petitioner as an accused.
ix. that the Ld. Trial Court did not record the
material irregularities pointed out on behalf of the
petitioner, and passed the impugned order without
even considering the fact that IO in the said
chargesheet did not submit the requisite documents
and government orders which have been allegedly
violated.
x. that the impugned order suffers from several
inconsistencies and the order passed is erroneous,
arbitrary, hence, liable to be set-aside.
8. During arguments, Ld. Senior Counsel appearing for
the petitioner argued that the Ld. Trial Court cannot take
cognizance of the offences committed u/s 186 and 188 of
IPC through a chargesheet under Sections 190(1)(b) of
Cr.P.C., without the written complaint being given by same
officer whose order has been violated as per Section 195
Cr.P.C. He submitted that for offence under Section 186
and 188 a complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. must be
filed and Ld. Magistrate must take cognizance under
Section 190(1)(a) of Cr.P.C. He argued that the
observations of Ld. Magistrate that when both cognizable
and non-cognizable offence is alleged against the accused
and a chargesheet is filed under two or more such offences
of which at least one is cognizable, the offences shall be PURSHOTTAM
PATHAK
tried as if it is a cognizable offence is not based on sound Digitally signed
by
PURSHOTTAM
PATHAK
Date: 2025.01.20
17:13:00 +0530
CR Rev No. 112 of 2024 Rajeev Behl Vs. The State of NCT of Delhi Page no. 6 of 16
legal proposition. He also argued that even the ingredients
of section 353 of IPC have not been made out against the
petitioner qua the said chargesheet and no charge under
section 353 IPC can be framed against the petitioner. He
argued that the Ld. Trial Court did not appreciate the law
that section 195 of Cr.P.C. restricts the general powers of
the magistrate given under Section 190 of Cr.P.C. He
further submitted that it is a well recognized canon of
interpretation that a provision curbing the general
jurisdiction of the court must normally receive strict
interpretation unless the statute or the context requires
otherwise. He prayed that there is no grave suspicion for
the purpose of prima facie case, hence the petitioner is
liable to be discharged. In support of his arguments Ld.
Senior counsel has placed reliance upon the following
judgments:-
i. Charanjit Singh @ Channi Vs. State of Punjab CRM-M-453-
2023;
ii. C. Muniyappan and Ors. Vs. State of Tamil Nadu (2010)
9SCC 567;
iii. Daulat Ram Vs. State of Pubjab AIR 1962 SC 1206;
iv. Saloni Arora Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) (2017) 3SCC 286;
v. Sachin and Ors. Vs. State of NCT of Delhi 2019 BHC 3086;
vi. Basir Ul Haq Vs. State of West Bengal AIR 1953 SC 293;
vii. Gurucharan Singh Arora Vs. State (2002) 96DLT 181 and
viii. Manik Taneja Vs. State of Karnataka (2015) 7SCC 423;
9. Contrary to it, Ld. APP for the state has submitted
that there is no error or illegality in the detailed order dated
05.02.2024, wherein the Ld. Trial Court has already dealt
with the contentions and has passed reasoned order on
charge. He argued that at the stage of framing of charge,
only prima facie case is to be looked by the court. He PURSHOTTAM
PATHAK
Digitally signed by
PURSHOTTAM
PATHAK
Date: 2025.01.20
17:13:03 +0530
CR Rev No. 112 of 2024 Rajeev Behl Vs. The State of NCT of Delhi Page no. 7 of 16
submitted that there exists a prima facie case for the
offences under Section 186/188/353 IPC.
10. Heard the Ld. Senior counsel for the revisionist as
well as Ld. Addl. PP for the state and also considered the
material on record.
11. The Ld. Trial Court found sufficient material to
proceed for trying the accused person under Section 186,
188 and 353 of IPC.
12. Section 186 ,188 and 353 IPC reads as follows:
Section 186 IPC: Obstructing Public servant in discharge of public
functions: Whoever voluntarily obstructs any public servant in the
discharge of his public functions, shall be punished with
imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to
three months, or with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees,
or with both.
Section 188 IPC: Disobedience to order duty promulgated by public
servant. Whoever, knowing that, by an order promulgated by a
public servant lawfully empowered to promulgate such order, he is
directed to abstain from a certain act, or to take certain order with
certain property in his possession or under his management disobeys
such direction, shall, if such disobedience causes or tends to cause
obstruction, annoyance or injury, or risk of obstruction, annoyance or
injury, to any persons lawfully employed, be punished with simple
imprisonment for a term which may extend to one month or with
fine which may extend to two hundred rupees, or with both; And if
such disobedience causes or tends to cause danger to human life,
health or safety, or causes or tends to cause a riot or affray, shall be
punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which
may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to one
thousand rupees, or with bothSection 353 IPC: Assault or criminal force to deter public servant
from discharge of his duty. Whoever assaults or uses criminal force
to any person being a public servant in the execution of his duty as
such public servant, or with intent to prevent or deter that person
from discharging his duty as such public servant, or in consequence
of anything done or attempted to be done by such person to the
lawful discharge of his duty as such public servant, shall be punished Digitallywith imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend signed by
PURSHOTTAM
PURSHOTTAM PATHAK
PATHAK Date:
2025.01.20
17:13:09
+0530CR Rev No. 112 of 2024 Rajeev Behl Vs. The State of NCT of Delhi Page no. 8 of 16
to two years, or with fine, or with both.
13. The reading of the above provisions makes it clear
that in order to attract these sections the prosecution is
required to establish that there was obstruction to the
public servant in discharge of public functions, there was
disobedience to order duly promulgated by public servant
and assault or criminal force was used to deter public
servant from discharge of his duty.
14. Section 186 and 188 IPC are part of chapter X of the
IPC, which covers offences related to “contempt of lawful
authority of public servants”. For taking cognizance by
court for these offences special procedural scheme has
been provided under Section 195 Cr.P.C. which reads as
follows:-
195. Prosecution for contempt of lawful authority of public servants,
for offences against public justice and for offences relating to
documents given in evidence.
1. No Court shall take cognizance –
(a)(i)of any offence punishable under sections 172 to 188
(both inclusive) of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), or
(ii)of any abetment of, or attempt to commit, such
offence, or
(iii)of any criminal conspiracy to commit such offence,
except on the complaint in writing of the public servant
concerned or other public servant to whom he is
administratively subordinate;
(b)(i)of any offence punishable under any of the
following sections of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860),
namely, sections 193 to 196 (both inclusive), 199, 200,
205 to 211 (both inclusive) and 228, when such offence is
alleged to have been committed in, or in relation to, any
proceeding in any Court, or
(ii)of any offence described in section 463, or punishable
under section 471, section 475 or section 476 of the said
Code, when such offence is alleged to have been PURSHOTTAMcommitted in respect of a document produced or given in
PATHAKDigitally signed by
PURSHOTTAM
PATHAK
Date: 2025.01.20
17:13:14 +0530CR Rev No. 112 of 2024 Rajeev Behl Vs. The State of NCT of Delhi Page no. 9 of 16
evidence in a proceeding in any Court, or
(iii)of any criminal conspiracy to commit, or attempt to
commit, or the abetment of, any offence specified in sub-
clause (i) or sub-clause (ii),
[except on the complaint in writing of that Court or by
such officer of the Court as that Court may authorise in
writing in this behalf, or of some other Court to which
that Court is subordinate.] [Substituted by Act 2 of 2006,
Section 3 for “except on the complaint in writing of that
Court, of of some other Court to which that Court is
subordinate” (w.e.f. 16-4-2006).]
(2)Where a complaint has been made by a public servant
under clause (a) of sub-section (1) any authority to which
he is administratively subordinate may order the
withdrawal of the complaint and send a copy of such
order to the Court; and upon its receipt by the Court, no
further proceedings shall be taken on the complaint :
Provided that no such withdrawal shall be ordered if the
trial in the Court of first instance has been concluded.
15. Section 195(a)(i) provides that no court shall take
cognizance of any offence punishable under Section 172 to
188 of the IPC. except on a written complaint of the
public servant concern or his superior.
16. The word complaint used in Section 195(1)(a)(iii) of
Cr.P.C. has been defined under Section 2(d) of Cr.P.C.
which reads as under:
“complaint” means any allegation made orally or in writing to a
Magistrate, with a view to his taking action under this Code, that
some person, whether known or unknown, has committed an
offence, but does not include a police report.
17. Ld. counsel has contended that the court cannot take
cognizance of the offences committed under section 186
and 188 of the IPC. through a chargesheet under section
190(1)(b) of CrPC without the written complaint being
given by the same officer whose order has been violated as
per section 195 of CrPC. PURSHOTTAM
PATHAK
Digitally signed
by
18. It is not in dispute that the revisionist herein has PURSHOTTAM
PATHAK
Date: 2025.01.20
17:13:19 +0530
CR Rev No. 112 of 2024 Rajeev Behl Vs. The State of NCT of Delhi Page no. 10 of 16
been chargesheeted for the offences u/s 186/188/353 IPC
with respect to incident of obstructing Ct. Dilip and Ct.
Amit, who were on public duty, violating the notification
no. 3270-3669/SO-ACP/HK New Delhi, dated 03.05.2021
and using criminal force to deter them from doing their
duty. Admittedly, the chargesheet is accompanied with a
complaint as envisaged under section 195 Cr.P.C. The said
complaint under section 195 Cr.P.C. has been filed in the
court of Ld. MM, Saket Courts, New Delhi, that a
prohibitory order under Section 144 Cr.P.C. was issued by
ACP Hauz Khas in official capacity of ACP Hauz Khas,
South District vide order no. 3270-3669/SO-ACP/HK,
New Delhi, dated 03.05.2021, extending the curfew on
movement of individuals till 5 AM on 10.05.2021. It is
mentioned therein that the revisionist was found violating
the said directions made in prohibitory order and also
obstructed the police officials by using criminal force to
them.
19. In the present case sanction under Section 195
Cr.P.C. for prosecuting the accused has been placed on
record along with the chargesheet. Hence, ACP Hauz
Khas, New Delhi was competent to lodge the complaint
under Section 195 CrPC for the prosecution of the
revisionist for the offences in question. Daulat Ram’s case
(Supra) relied upon by the counsel for the revisionist does
not render any assistance to him. In the said case, the
conviction of the appellant had been set aside by the
Hon’ble Apex Court as the cognizance of the offence under PURSHOTTAM
PATHAK
Section 182 IPC had been assumed by the trial court Digitally signed
by PURSHOTTAM
PATHAK
Date: 2025.01.20
17:13:24 +0530
CR Rev No. 112 of 2024 Rajeev Behl Vs. The State of NCT of Delhi Page no. 11 of 16
without there being any complaint under Section 195
CrPC. However, in the case on hand, the complaint under
Section 195 CrPC is very much available on record.
Hence, the contention of the counsel for the revisionist on
the above score is also without any substance.
20. Ld. Senior Counsel has also contended that the Ld.
Trial Court has wrongly concluded that when both
cognizable and non-cognizable offences are alleged against
the accused and a chargesheet is filed under two or more
such offences of which at least one is cognizable, the
offences shall be tried as if it is a cognizable offence. The
petitioner has been charged for committing the offence
punishable under Section 186/188/353 IPC, the offence of
obstructing public servant is punishable under Section 186
IPC and is non-cognizable. The other offence u/s 188 IPC
for which the revisionist has been charged is cognizable
offence but the cognizance for same is barred u/s 195
CrPC. So far as offence punishable under Section 353 IPC
is concerned, it being a distinct offence, even if there is no
complaint under Section 195 Cr.P.C. he cannot be
discharged.
21. Section 155(4) of the Code of criminal procedure
provides that where the cases related to two or more
offences of which at least one is cognizable, the case shall
be deemed to be cognizable case notwithstanding other
offences are non-cognizable. Thus, where the offence is
cognizable chargesheet can be filed and offence shall be
tried as it is cognizable offence. Further, when two or more
PURSHOTTAM
PATHAK
offences are made out and one of them are non-cognizable Digitally signed
by PURSHOTTAM
PATHAK
Date: 2025.01.20
17:13:28 +0530
CR Rev No. 112 of 2024 Rajeev Behl Vs. The State of NCT of Delhi Page no. 12 of 16
and other are cognizable, the complaint case need not be
filed as police filed the charge-sheet. Therefore, the legal
issue raised on behalf of revisionist is without any force.
As far as framing of charge for offence u/s 353 IPC is
concerned, there is prima facie sufficient material on
record to proceed against accused and I do not find any
reason to take a view different from what Ld. Trial Court
has taken.
22. There is no dispute as to the legal proposition laid
down in the judgments relied upon by the Ld. Senior
counsel for the revisionist. However, there are of no help
to the revisionist as same are passed in facts and
circumstances of those cases.
23. 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
complainant. 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. senior 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. The law on the
question of consideration of charge is well settled. If the
criminal court, on consideration of the material submitted
PURSHOTTAM
with the charge sheet finds that a grave suspicion exists
PATHAK
Digitally signed by
PURSHOTTAM
PATHAK
about the involvement of the accused in the crime alleged, Date: 2025.01.20
17:13:30 +0530
CR Rev No. 112 of 2024 Rajeev Behl Vs. The State of NCT of Delhi Page no. 13 of 16
it is expected to frame the charge and put the accused on
trial. 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.
24. 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.”
25. 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
sufficiency of the materials to establish the offence alleged
against the accused persons. PURSHOTTAM
PATHAK
26. Similar are the observations in “State of Bihar Vs.
Digitally signed
by PURSHOTTAM
PATHAK
Date: 2025.01.20
17:13:34 +0530
CR Rev No. 112 of 2024 Rajeev Behl Vs. The State of NCT of Delhi Page no. 14 of 16
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)”.
27. 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, a grave suspicion arises against revisionist for
having committed offence under section 186/188/353 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.
28. In view of above discussion, I do not find any legal
infirmity or material illegality or jurisdictional error in the
impugned order which would occasion injustice, if not set-
aside. Hence, the revision petition being devoid of any
merit is dismissed.
PURSHOTTAM
PATHAK
29. TCR be sent back to court concerned along with
Digitally signed by
PURSHOTTAM
PATHAK
Date: 2025.01.20
17:13:37 +0530
CR Rev No. 112 of 2024 Rajeev Behl Vs. The State of NCT of Delhi Page no. 15 of 16
copy of present judgment.
30. Revision petition be consigned to record room after
Digitally signed by
due compliance. PURSHOTTAM PURSHOTTAM
PATHAK
PATHAK Date: 2025.01.20
17:12:31 +0530
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT (PURSHOTAM PATHAK)
TODAY ON THIS ASJ-05(SOUTH)
20th DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 SAKET COURTS: N.D
(This judgment contains total 16 signed pages)
CR Rev No. 112 of 2024 Rajeev Behl Vs. The State of NCT of Delhi Page no. 16 of 16
[ad_1]
Source link