Criminal Appeal Nos.138-140 of 2018

19th January, 2018.

Petitioner Counsel: Mr. COLIN GONSALVES, Sr. Adv., Ms. PALLAVI SHARMA, Mr. SATYA MITRA
Respondent Counsel: Ms. PINKY ANAND, ASG, Ms. SEEMA BENGANI, Mr. B.V. BALARAM DAS, Mr. HEMANT ARYA, Mr. JAIDEEP MALIK, Mr. O.P. BHADANI, Mr. S.S. PANDEY, Ms. JOSHINI TULI, Ms. DIVYA JANGID, Mr. ANIS AHMED KHAN, Mr. ASHU KR. SHARMA, Mr. HARISH PANT

JUDGMENT

JUDGMENT :- Leave granted.

2. These appeals filed by the prosecutrix take exception to the legality and tenability of the judgment and order dated 08.12.2016 in Crl.Revision Petition Nos.472/2016; 183 of 2015 and 591 of 2015 passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi quashing the charges framed against the private respondents for offences punishable under Sections 364A/342/376(2)(f)/511/506 of IPC against accused Yashwinder Malik; and under Sections 308 read with 120B, IPC against accused Bala and Mandeep; under Section 506, IPC against accused Bala; and in the alternate under Section 326 read with Section 120B against accused Bala and Mandeep vide order dated 07.01.2015 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge/Fast Track Court, Rohini, Delhi in respect of FIR No.1178/09 registered at Police Station, Panipat City, Haryana.

3. We have heard Mr. Colin Gonsalves, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant; Ms. Pinky Anand, learned Additional Solicitor General appearing for respondent no.1-State; Mr. Jaideep Malik, learned counsel appearing for respondent-accused Yashwinder Malik; and Ms. Joshini Tuli, learned counsel appearing for respondent-accused Mandeep @ Mann.

4. We have perused the order passed by the Fast Track Court framing charges as also the impugned judgment of the High Court. After bestowing our thoughtful consideration, we are of the view that for the nature of the case and the fact situation, the impugned judgment of the High Court deserves to be set aside. In our considered opinion, the High Court has exceeded its jurisdiction in virtually appreciating the evidence on record at the stage of framing of charge as if it was evaluating the said evidence after a full-fledged trial. We refrain from elaborating the contentions raised by the respective counsel lest it may cause prejudice to one or the other party during the trial and the outcome thereof. The impugned judgment, therefore, deserves to be set aside and instead the order passed by the Fast Track Court deserves to be affirmed leaving all the contentions available to the parties during the trial open.

5. We may it clear that the trial court shall get influenced by any of the observations made by the Fast Track Court in the order framing charge or for that matter by the High Court. In other words, the trial court shall decide the case on its own merits without being influenced by any observation in the aforementioned orders or the fact that the order of the High Court is being set aside.

6. We may, however, note with approval the fair concession made by learned counsel appearing for the State and the learned counsel for the complainant appearing in the proceedings before the High Court that the charge framed under Section 376(2)(f) IPC read with Section 511 IPC has been erroneously framed by the Fast Track Court for, that Section came into existence only in 2013 by Act 13 of February 2013 and could not be given retrospective effect. The other charges framed against the private respondents by the Fast Track Court will have to proceed further in accordance with law.

The appeals stand disposed of in the aforementioned terms.

Ordered accordingly.