CRL.REV.P.--782/2019. Case: ABHISHEK TANWAR Vs. THE STATE OF DELHI (NCT OF DELHI). High Court of Delhi (India)

Case NumberCRL.REV.P.--782/2019
CitationNA
Judgement DateAugust 14, 2019
CourtHigh Court of Delhi (India)

CRL.REV.P. 782/2019, CRL.M.A. 32034/2019 (stay) and CRL.M.A. 32035/2019 (delay)

Reserved on : 01.08.2019 Date of Decision : 14.08.2019

IN THE MATTER OF:

ABHISHEK TANWAR ..... Petitioner

Through: Mr. D. Hasija, Advocate with Mr. Mustafa Ahmad Khan, Advocate

versus

THE STATE OF DELHI (NCT OF DELHI) ..... Respondent Through: Dr. M P Singh, APP for State with SI Krishan Kumar, PS Moti Nagar

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR OHRI

  1. By way of the present petition, the petitioner has assailed the order on charge dated 28.03.2019 passed by the Court of District & Sessions Judge (West) Tis Hazari Court, Delhi under Section 308/323/506/34 IPC arising out of FIR No.0395/2016.

  2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has primarily challenged impugned order on three grounds namely:-

    (i) as per the MLC the injury was opined to be simple;

    (ii) the weapon was not recovered; and

    (iii) no public witness has been associated with the investigation.

    opposed the present petition and submitted that at the stage of passing of order on charge, the court is not required to go into the evidence in detail and only a prima facie view is to be taken, which the learned District Sessions Judge did take while passing the order on charge and as there is no illegality or perversity committed by the court below, the present petition ought to be dismissed.

  3. The present case was instituted on the complaint of Aakash Singh. The facts, as noted in the charge-sheet, mention that the incident occurred on 03.08.2016. In his statement, the complainant alleged that on the day of the incident, he had gone to pick his remaining luggage take refund of his security deposit of Rs.8,500/- from his landlord namely, Vinod Tanwar as he had taken another house on rent. Vinod Tanwar refused to hand over the security deposit and rather asked complainant to take it from the present petitioner at whose instance th premises were given on rent to the complainant.

  4. It is the case of the prosecution that the present petitioner arrived at the spot and the complainant was assured that his security amount would be refunded. The complainant was asked to reach ATM HDFC Bank, where the petitioner was present along with Vinod Tanwar and others. The complainant was accompanied by his friends at coaching namely Karan Kirti Singh & Rahul Yadav. The petitioner and Vinod Tanwar were armed with weapons similar to a country made pistol exhorted “salon ko jaan se mar do”. At this, the petitioner assaulted Karan Kirti Singh. Simultaneously, Vinod Tanwar and others also started assaulting the complainant and his two friends with hockey, stick

    complainant and other injured were taken to the hospital where MLCs were prepared.

  5. Initially, a case under Section 308/34 IPC was registered. receipt of the medical opinion on the MLC, Section 323/506 IPC added. The MLCs of the complainant and the injured alongwith statements recorded under section 161 CrPC were filed with the charge sheet.

  6. The scope of power of the Court under Sections 227 & 228 CrP has been defined time and again. The Court while framing charge has the power to sift and weigh the evidence for the limited purpose to find...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT