Dismissed¶17

State (Nct of Delhi) through Deputy Commissioner of Police v. Dharmender @ Sonu & Ors.

Delhi HC9 Sept 2025CRL.REV.P./694/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Delhi High Court criminal revision dismissing prosecution challenge to framing of charge under Sections 332/353/186/34 IPC; Section 308 IPC charge declined because MLC injuries were simple abrasions unlikely to cause death or culpable homicide and act was on the spur of the moment; public servant victim justified Sections 332/353 IPC charges; ASJ Rohini order dated 22.03.2023 affirmed; Amit Mahajan J.; decision 09.09.2025.

What did the court decide?

On account of the simple nature of the injuries shown in the MLC (abrasions on three body parts), the Trial Court rightly held they were not likely to cause death or culpable homicide, so no prima facie case under Section 308 IPC is made out. ¶14

State (Nct of Delhi) through Deputy Commissioner of Police Vs Dharmender @ Sonu & Ors. — Delhi HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶17

Issue for consideration

Whether the learned Trial Court erred in not framing charge against the respondents for the offence under Section 308 IPC, given the nature of the injuries inflicted on the victim while discharging his duties.

¶10

Court's answer

¶14

Ratio / Principle

As the alleged act occurred at the spur of the moment and the injuries are simple, no intention or knowledge of causing injury likely to cause culpable homicide can be imputed to the respondents.

¶14

Key takeaways

Because the victim was a public servant, charge was rightly framed under Sections 332/353 IPC (voluntary hurt to deter a public servant from duty and assault on a public servant discharging his duty).ratio¶15
There is no infirmity in the order passed by the learned Trial Court framing charge.ratio¶16

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Prosecution revision (CRL.REV.P. 694/2023, High Court of Delhi, Amit Mahajan J., 09.09.2025) challenging an order dated 22.03.2023 of the ASJ-04 (North), Rohini Courts, whereby charge was framed against the respondents under Sections 332/353/186/34 IPC but not under Section 308 IPC. Allegations were that the respondents hit the victim with a brick, fists and kicks while he was performing his duties. Relying on the MLC showing abrasions on three body parts and injuries simple in nature, the Court held there was no prima facie case under Section 308 IPC: the injuries were not likely to cause death or culpable homicide, and the act occurred at the spur of the moment so no intention or knowledge could be imputed. As the victim was a public servant, framing of charge under Sections 332/353 IPC was upheld as correct. Finding no infirmity in the Trial Court's order, the petition was dismissed and pending applications disposed of.

¶1

$~36

¶2

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- CRL.REV.P. 694/2023 STATE (NCT OF DELHI) THROUGH DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF POLICE .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Sunil Kumar Gautam, APP for the State with SI Sandeep, PS Bawana.

¶4

versus

¶5

DHARMENDER @ SONU & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Himanshu Sharma, Advocate (through VC).

¶6

CORAM:

¶7

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN O R D E R

¶8

% 09.09.2025

¶9

The present petition has been filed by the prosecution challenging the order dated 22.03.2023, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-04 (North), Rohini Courts, Delhi ( ‘Court of Sessions’ ), whereby the learned Trial Court framed charge against the respondents under Sections 332/353/186/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ( ‘IPC’ ).

¶10

The prosecution is essentially aggrieved by the fact that the charges have not been framed for the offence under Section 308 of the IPC against the respondents. The allegations against the respondents are that they had hit the victim with a brick as well as with fists and kicks while he was discharging his duties. 3. Undisputedly, the allegations against the respondents are serious in nature, however, the MLC of the victim indicates that the injuries include abrasions on three body parts. The injuries are stated to be simple in nature.

¶11

The learned Trial Court noting the kind of injuries, in the

¶12

This is a digitally signed order.

¶13

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 12/09/2025 at 12:17:49

¶14

opinion of this Court, rightly held that the injuries were not such that which are likely to cause death or culpable homicide and therefore, no prima facie case under Section 308 of the IPC is made out. It is also not disputed that even as per allegations the alleged act of causing injuries happened at the spur of the moment and no intention or knowledge can be imputed to the respondent for causing injuries which are likely to cause culpable homicide specially when the injuries are stated to be simple in nature.

¶15

Since the victim was a public servant, charge was rightly framed under Section 332/353 of the IPC that is causing voluntary hurt to deter public servant from his duty and assault on public servant while he is discharging his duty.

¶16

In the opinion of this Court, there is no infirmity in the order passed by the learned Trial Court.

¶17

The present petition is therefore dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.

¶18

AMIT MAHAJAN, J

¶19

SEPTEMBER 9, 2025 DU

¶20

This is a digitally signed order.

¶21

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 12/09/2025 at 12:17:49

State (Nct of Delhi) through Deputy Commissioner of Police v. Dharmender @ Sonu & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State (Nct of Delhi) through Deputy Commissioner of Police v. Dharmender @ Sonu & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Harish Sati Vs State NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Sxxxx Vs the State of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Sonal Babu Vs the State of NCT of Delhi

Pushpa Devi Vs Mangla Ram

Baharuddin Vs State NCT of Delhi

Naman Kalra & Ors. Vs the State (N.C.T of Delhi) & Anr.