The Delhi High Court dismissed the criminal revision petition challenging the discharge of an accused lawyer. The Single Judge held that there was no material on record to support allegations of harassment against the revisionist.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
$~12
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI
O R D E R
This petition impugns an order dated 22.01.2018 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Saket Courts, discharging respondent no. 2 from further proceedings, in a complaint by the petitioner. Her case was that after the accused was granted bail on 10.08.2015, the accused alongwith his lawyer accosted and harassed her. A complaint was made by the petitioner at emergency no. 100 of the police. The police investigated the matter and put the respondent no. 2 in column no. 12 of the Chargesheet, whereas the main accused-respondent no. 3 was put in column no. 11. The impugned order has reasoned that the respondent no. 2, who has been discharged, had filed a transcript of the complaint of the petitioner over the phone to the police, wherein he is not mentioned as having harassed her either physically or verbally. There is not even a whisper against respondent no. 2.
The impugned order has reasoned as under:-
“ 11. During the course of arguments, the revisionist has drawn the attention of this court to form no. 1 of the PCR call made by the complainant on 10.08.2015 at 16:14:12 wherein, the contents of the call are mentioned as "caller Promila ki ladki ko koi ladka chedkhani karta tha jiski aaj Jamanat ho gayi hai jo ladka caller ko dhamki dekar gaya hai" and urged that in said PCR form, there is no mention of any allegations raised by the complainant against any lawyer. In rebuttal, it is argued on behalf of complainant that it is not always necessary that in the PCR form the entire facts narrated by the caller are mentioned and usually, only the crux of the complaint is being recorded in the PCR form without mentioning the details. To meet this contention raised from the complainant's side, the revisionist further submitted that by moving an RTI application, he had obtained the entire recording of the phone call of the caller/complainant received at PCR after the alleged incident and has got the CD of said conversation from the PCR and has placed the same on the record of this court and has also placed the copy of transcription of audio recording of said PCR call and the same nowhere mentions any iota of allegation raised by the complainant against the revisionist.
13. Having regard to aforementioned discussions and after taking note of aforementioned position of law, I am of the view that the impugned order to the extent of summoning the revisionist whose name was placed in column no. 12 of the charge sheet is illegal and incorrect not only for being a nonspeaking order but also on account of the fact that the material on record before trial court was not adequate to proceed against said accused/revisionist kept in column no.12 of the charge sheet. The improvements made by the complainant in her statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C. are apparent as in her original complaint, she has just raised general allegations saying that the revisionist raised filthy language against her but she did not mention what actually was uttered against her except that “Abhi sirf bail hui hai or sham ko ghar par dhol bhi bajega, or tujse jo kiya ja sake kar le”.
Furthermore, the PCR form also does not mention that any allegation was raised against the lawyer of said boy against whom the complainant's daughter had filed a FIR. Even the transcription of the whole conversation on the PCR call made by complainant from mobile no. 9953472387 on 10.08.2015, nowhere reflects any allegation against the lawyer of the boy who was granted anticipatory bail on that day”.
In view of the above, the reasoning for discharging respondent no.2 cannot be faulted. There is no merit in the petition. It is accordingly dismissed.
NAJMI WAZIRI, J
AUGUST 16, 2018 RW
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the discharge order of the accused revisionist in column 12 of the charge sheet is illegal and incorrect.
Promila Mohan
State & Ors.
Najmi Waziri
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
