In this criminal revision, the High Court dismissed the petitioner's challenge to the framing of a charge under Section 308 IPC. The Court held that injury severity was not decider versus intent, the trial must proceed without quashing.
Petition dismissed; framing of charge under Section 308 IPC maintained.
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.
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision: 03.01.2024
IN THE MATTER OF:
PRANKUR MISHRA
..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Javed Ali and Ms. Farheen Jahan, Advocates.
Versus STATE NCT OF DELHI & ANR. ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Naval Kishore Jha, APP for State with SI Suresh Kumar PS New Usman Pur, Delhi.
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR OHRI
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
CRL.REV.P. 7/2024 Page 1 of 4 Digitally Signed
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:NIJAMUDDEEN ANSARI Signing Date:11.01.2024 15:30:46
23.11.2017 at around 8.30 pm, the complainant and his two friends Moseem and Pappu, were consuming alcohol on the terrace of Hotel of Saddam at Gali No.5, Jagjit Nagar, New Usmanpur, III Pusta. Saddam came to the terrace and asked the complainant to stop consuming liquor however, upon his refusal, Saddam called Sonu and another boy whose name was not known and proceeded to drag the complainant from the roof and beat him with lathi danda and patila on his head. The complainant has further stated that Sonu and his associates have caused injuries on his head which would have resulted his death.
“xxx
1 (1998) 8 SCC 557
Signature Not Verified
CRL.REV.P. 7/2024 Page 2 of 4 Digitally Signed
Digitally Signed By:NIJAMUDDEEN ANSARI Signing Date:11.01.2024 15:30:46
4. The view taken by the High Court is obviously erroneous because offence punishable under Section 308 IPC postulates doing of an act with such intention or knowledge and under such circumstances that if one by that act caused death, he would be guilty of culpable homicide not amounting to murder. An attempt of that nature may actually result in hurt or may not.
xxx”
Further, in the case of Om Wati (Smt.) & Anr. v. State & Ors.2 , it was observed:-
“xxx
8. At the stage of passing the order in terms of Section 227 of the Code, the court has merely to peruse the evidence in order to find out whether or not there is a sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. If upon consideration, the court is satisfied that a prima facie case is made out against the accused, the Judge must proceed to frame charge in terms of Section 228 of the Code. Only in a case where it is shown that the evidence which the prosecution proposes to adduce to prove the guilt of the accused, even if fully accepted before it is challenged in cross-examination or rebutted by defence evidence cannot show that the accused committed the crime, then and then alone the court can discharge the accused. The court is not required to enter into meticulous consideration of evidence and material placed before it at this stage. This Court in Stree Atyachar Virodhi Parishad v. Dilip Nathumal Chordia cautioned the High Courts to be loath in interfering at the stage of framing the charges against the accused. Self-restraint on the part of the High Court should be the rule unless there is a glaring injustice staring the court in the face. The opinion on many matters can differ depending upon the person who views it. There may be as many opinions on a particular point, as there are courts but that would not justify the High Court to interdict the trial. Generally,
2 (2001) 4 SCC 333
CRL.REV.P. 7/2024 Page 3 of 4 Digitally Signed
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:NIJAMUDDEEN ANSARI Signing Date:11.01.2024 15:30:46
it would be appropriate for the High Court to allow the trial to proceed.
xxx
12. ……We would again remind the High Courts of their statutory obligation to not to interfere at the initial stage of framing the charges merely on hypothesis, imagination and farfetched reasons which in law amount to interdicting the trial against the accused persons. Unscrupulous litigants should be discouraged from protracting the trial and preventing culmination of the criminal cases by having resort to uncalledfor and unjustified litigation under the cloak of technicalities of law.
xxx”
MANOJ KUMAR OHRI (JUDGE)
JANUARY 3, 2024/ rd
Signature Not Verified
CRL.REV.P. 7/2024 Page 4 of 4 Digitally Signed
Digitally Signed By:NIJAMUDDEEN ANSARI Signing Date:11.01.2024 15:30:46
3 issues framed by the court
Whether a charge under Section 308 IPC can be framed when injuries are found to be simple in nature.
Whether the High Court can quash framing of charges under Section 482 Cr.P.C merely on the ground that the petitioner was not named in the FIR.
Whether the failure to seize alleged weapons used in the incident is a valid ground for quashing the charge frame.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Sunil Kumar v. N.C.T. of Delhi & Ors.Referred¶17
(1998) 8 SCC 557 · Who else cites this
Stree Atyachar Virodhi Parishad v. Dilip Nathumal ChordiaReferred¶26
(2001) 4 SCC 333 · Who else cites this
4 provisions across 2 enactments
Prankur Mishra
State NCT of Delhi
Manoj Kumar Ohri
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
