GURPARTAP SINGH v. NATIONAL INVESTIGATION AGENCY
Court: High Court of Jammu and Kashmir
Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE WASIM SADIQ NARGAL
Judgment date:
Case summary
High Court of Jammu and Kashmir judgment dated 2024-09-25. GURPARTAP SINGH v. NATIONAL INVESTIGATION AGENCY. Read the judgment and case details on LawSphereX.
Judgment text
Sr. No. 381 HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU Case No. :CRM(M) No. 729/2024 Gurpartap Singh, Aged 60 years, …. Petitioner(s) S/o Late Satara Singh, R/o Village Sarai Amanat Khan, District Taran, Punjab At present lodged in District Jail, Rajouri. Through :- Mr. Akeel Wani, Advocate vice Mr. I. H. Bhat,Advocate. V/s National Investigation Agency …. Respondent(s) Through :- Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE WASIM SADIQ NARGAL, JUDGE ORDER 25. 09. 2024 1. In the instant petition filed under Section 528 of the BNSS, the petitioner seeks quashment of the charge order dated 23. 08.
2022 (in rd short,“impugned order”) passed by the Court of learned 3 Additional Sessions Judge, NIA Court, Jammu (hereinafter referred to as the, “trial Court”), whereby the petitioner has been charge-sheeted for commission of offences punishable under Section 120-B of the IPC read with Sections 8, 29, 21, 23 and 27-A of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (hereinafter referred to as the,“ NDPS Act”)and Sections 13, 17 & 18 of the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act, 1967 (in short, “Act of 1967”). FACTUAL MATRIX 2. That an FIR bearing No. 65/2020 dated 20. 09. 2020 (in short, “impugned FIR”) was registered at Police Station, Arnia under Sections 307,120-B and 121 of the IPC and Section 7/25 of the Arms Act relating to unprovoked firing from Pakistan side of the border near Bulleychak at a local police party led by SHO Police Station Arnia, District Jammu. In the said FIR, it 2CRM(M) No. 729/2024CRM(M) No.
729/2024 has been mentionedhas been mentioned that unknown persons fired upon the police patrolling partyfired upon the police patrolling partyfired upon the police patrolling party of Arnia Police Station with anof Arnia Police Station with an intention to kill the police personnelon to kill the police personnel and during during th th search in the intervening night ofsearch in the intervening night of 19 &20 September, 2021September, 2021, conducted by BSF conducted by BSF deployed there, heroin weighing 61 kg 420 gramheroin weighing 61 kg 420 gram and opium weighing 1. 245 Kgg alongwith two pistols, threewith two pistols, three magazines and 100 lmagazines and 100 live cartridges were recoveredive cartridges were recovered from the spot. 3.
During the investigation in the said FIRuring the investigation in the said FIRuring the investigation in the said FIR, the police arrested 07 persons persons and 500 gram of heroin was recovered and seized fromand 500 gram of heroin was recovered and seized fromand 500 gram of heroin was recovered and seized from the possession of arrestede possession of arrested person (Ajeet Kumar) (A(Ajeet Kumar) (A-3) and subsequent to the disclosure statement ofsubsequent to the disclosure statement ofsubsequent to the disclosure statement of accused Sham Lal (Aaccused Sham Lal (A-2) one pistol, one live cartridge was recovered and duringone pistol, one live cartridge was recovered and duringone pistol, one live cartridge was recovered and during the investigationinvestigation, the investigating officer added Sectionthe investigating officer added Sections 8, 21, 29 ofthe NDPS NDPS Act and Sectionand Sections 13, 17& 18 of the Act of 1967. the Act of 1967.
That keeping in view the keeping in view the gravity of offencesgravity of offences, the investigation of the impugned FIRimpugned FIR was, accordingly accordingly, handed over to the respondent (National investigating Agency) ato the respondent (National investigating Agency) ato the respondent (National investigating Agency) and the case wasnd the case was re-registered as RC No. 05/2020/NlA/ Jammu dated5/2020/NlA/ Jammu dated 26. 11. 2020 under Sections2020 under Sections 307, 120-B and 121 of IPC, SectionB and 121 of IPC, Sections 7/25 of the7/25 of the Arms Act, Sections 8, 21 and 29 21 and 29 of the NDPS Act and Sections 13, 17 & 18 ofAct and Sections 13, 17 & 18 of the Act ofthe Act of 1967. 4.
That during the course of investigationduring the course of investigationduring the course of investigation, 9 mm pistol and 7 liverounds 9 mm pistol and 7 liverounds were recovered and seized from the residential house ofwere recovered and seized from the residential house ofwere recovered and seized from the residential house of one accused, namely namely, Sham Lal and on the disclosureLal and on the disclosure statement made by anothmade by another accused Ajeet Kumarer accused Ajeet Kumar (A-3), 500 gram3), 500 gram of heroin was recovered from the house of Ajeet Kumar andrecovered from the house of Ajeet Kumar andrecovered from the house of Ajeet Kumar and cash amounting tocash amounting to Rs. 9,06,300/- (Rupees Nine Lac, Six Thousand and Three(Rupees Nine Lac, Six Thousand and Three(Rupees Nine Lac, Six Thousand and Three Hundred) was recovered. was recovered.
The allegation against the petitioneragainst the petitioner herein is that on herein is that on the disclosure of accusedsure of accused-Sham Lal, one black colour bag having text adidas oncolour bag having text adidas on the front and Kalsi sports andthe front and Kalsi sports and trophies Gharyala besidetrophies Gharyala besides the image of tiger was image of tiger was recovered from the bedroom offrom the bedroom of accused Sham Lal. Sham Lal. 3CRM(M) No. 729/2024CRM(M) No. 729/2024 5. That thehat the said Sham Lal has stated in his disclosure statement that thisated in his disclosure statement that thisated in his disclosure statement that this bag was purchasedbag was purchased by accused-Gurpartap SinghGurpartap Singh (petitioner herein) and was and was given to him containing Rs. 20 lakhcontaining Rs. 20 lakh (Rupees Twenty Lacs),(Rupees Twenty Lacs), which which were were distributed by the saidthe said Sham Lal to the other members of Jammu modules.
Sham Lal to the other members of Jammu modules. That That a final charge-sheet was produced before the trial Court and vide ordersheet was produced before the trial Court and vide ordersheet was produced before the trial Court and vide order dated dated 23. 08. 2022, charges were framed against the petitionercharges were framed against the petitionercharges were framed against the petitioner under Section 120-B ofB of the IPC read with SectionPC read with Sections 8, 29, 21, 23& 27-A ofA of the NDPS Act and Sections Sections 17, 18, 38, 39 && 40 of the Act of 1967. ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF ON THE PETITONERARGUMENTS ON BEHALF ON THE PETITONERARGUMENTS ON BEHALF ON THE PETITONER 6.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that onLearned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that onLearned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that onLearned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that on perusal of the chargeperusal of the charge-sheet, it is apparent that there is no direct evidence or, it is apparent that there is no direct evidence or, it is apparent that there is no direct evidence or circumstantial evidence against the petitioner excecircumstantial evidence against the petitioner excecircumstantial evidence against the petitioner except the disclosure statement ofpt the disclosure statement of the said Sham Lal and it is well settled law that the disclosure statement can eventhe said Sham Lal and it is well settled law that the disclosure statement can eventhe said Sham Lal and it is well settled law that the disclosure statement can eventhe said Sham Lal and it is well settled law that the disclosure statement can even not be placed in the chargenot be placed in the charge-sheet.
The disclosure statement is only for thesheet. The disclosure statement is only for thesheet. The disclosure statement is only for the purpose of the Investigating Officer to lead the investigation anpurpose of the Investigating Officer to lead the investigation anpurpose of the Investigating Officer to lead the investigation and collect thed collect the evidence against the petitioner. However, no evidence, no recovery and no cashevidence against the petitioner. However, no evidence, no recovery and no cashevidence against the petitioner. However, no evidence, no recovery and no cashevidence against the petitioner.
However, no evidence, no recovery and no cash has been recovered from the petitioner and only on the basis of the disclosurehas been recovered from the petitioner and only on the basis of the disclosurehas been recovered from the petitioner and only on the basis of the disclosurehas been recovered from the petitioner and only on the basis of the disclosure statement of the costatement of the co-accused, charges under Section 120accused, charges under Section 120-B of the IPC read withB of the IPC read with Sections 8, 29, 21, 23 & 27ns 8, 29, 21, 23 & 27-A of the NDPS Act andt and Sections 17, 18, 38, 39 & 40 Sections 17, 18, 38, 39 & 40 of the Act of 1967 has been framed against the petitioner. of 1967 has been framed against the petitioner. of 1967 has been framed against the petitioner. 7.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has further argued that the chargeLearned counsel for the petitioner has further argued that the chargeLearned counsel for the petitioner has further argued that the chargeLearned counsel for the petitioner has further argued that the charge-sheet also transpires that there is no evidence or any witnesses against thesheet also transpires that there is no evidence or any witnesses against thesheet also transpires that there is no evidence or any witnesses against thesheet also transpires that there is no evidence or any witnesses against the petitioner, which proves involvement of the petitioner in the said chargepetitioner, which proves involvement of the petitioner in the said chargepetitioner, which proves involvement of the petitioner in the said charge-sheet. sheet.
He further submits that tHe further submits that there are witnesses against the other accusede are witnesses against the other accused, however,owever, none of the witnessesnone of the witnesses have stated anything against the petitioneranything against the petitioner and since theince the charges framed against the petitioner are against law and evidence and the trialcharges framed against the petitioner are against law and evidence and the trialcharges framed against the petitioner are against law and evidence and the trialcharges framed against the petitioner are against law and evidence and the trial Court has not taken into account the evidenCourt has not taken into account the evidence produced by the prosecution,ce produced by the prosecution,ce produced by the prosecution, CRM(M) No. 729/2024CRM(M) No.
729/2024 therefore, the same are required to be quashed and the petitioner may betherefore, the same are required to be quashed and the petitioner may betherefore, the same are required to be quashed and the petitioner may betherefore, the same are required to be quashed and the petitioner may be discharged from the aforesaid offences. discharged from the aforesaid offences. LEGAL ANALYSISLEGAL ANALYSIS Heard learned counsel for the petitioner at lengthHeard learned counsel for the petitioner at lengthHeard learned counsel for the petitioner at length.
The law has been settled thatlaw has been settled that parameters for invoking the inherentparameters for invoking the inherentparameters for invoking the inherent jurisdiction of the Court to quash the criminal proceedings underjurisdiction of the Court to quash the criminal proceedings underjurisdiction of the Court to quash the criminal proceedings under Section 528 of Section 528 of the BNSS (corresponding tocorresponding to Section 482 CrPCSection 482 CrPC)) are limited and the same has to and the same has to be exercised in rarest of rare cases and not in casualbe exercised in rarest of rare cases and not in casualbe exercised in rarest of rare cases and not in casual manner. The aforesaid manner.
The aforesaid proposition of law is well settled by Apex Court in “proposition of law is well settled by Apex Court in “proposition of law is well settled by Apex Court in “State of Haryana vs BhajanState of Haryana vs Bhajan reported inreported in AIR 1992 SC 604, wherein a caution has been given to thea caution has been given to thea caution has been given to the constitutional courts exercising the powers given underconstitutional courts exercising the powers given underconstitutional courts exercising the powers given under Section 482 of Criminalriminal Procedure CodeProcedure Code. The relevant para is reproduced as follows:The relevant para is reproduced as follows: “103.
We also give a note of caution to the effect that the power ofWe also give a note of caution to the effect that the power ofWe also give a note of caution to the effect that the power of quashingquashingquashing a a a criminal criminal criminal proceeding proceeding proceeding should should should be be be exercised exercised exercised very very very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest ofsparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest ofsparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases; that the court will not be justified in embarking uponcases; that the court will not be justified in embarking uponcases; that the court will not be justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of thean enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of thean enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegationsallegationsallegations made made made in the in the in the FIR FIR FIR or or or the the the complaint and complaint and complaint and that the that the that the extraordinary or inherent powers do not confer an arbitraryextraordinary or inherent powers do not confer an arbitraryextraordinary or inherent powers do not confer an arbitrary jurisdicjurisdiction on the court to act according to its whim or caprice.
”tion on the court to act according to its whim or caprice. ” This CCourt also takes note of the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court injudgment of Hon’ble Apex Court injudgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in Prashant Bharti vs StatePrashant Bharti vs State (NCT of Delhi) reported inreported in 2013 9 SCC 293, wherein wherein following has been held:following has been held: 22.
The proposition ofThe proposition of law, pertaining to quashing of criminallaw, pertaining to quashing of criminal proceedings, initiated against an accused by a High Court underproceedings, initiated against an accused by a High Court underproceedings, initiated against an accused by a High Court under Section 482 of theSection 482 of theSection 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as “CrPC”) has been dealt with by this Court inreferred to as “CrPC”) has been dealt with by this Court inreferred to as “CrPC”) has been dealt with by this Court in Rajiv ThaparThapar v. Madan Lal Kapoor [RajivRajiv Thapar v. Madan Lal KapoorKapoor, (2013) 3 SCC 330 : (2013) 3 SCC (Cri) 158] wherein this, (2013) 3 SCC 330 : (2013) 3 SCC (Cri) 158] wherein this Court inter alia held as under: (SCC pp. 347Court inter alia held as under: (SCC pp. 347Court inter alia held as under: (SCC pp.
347-49, paras 29-30) “29. 29. The issue being examined in the instant case is theThe issue being examined in the instant case is the jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 CrPC, ifjurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 CrPC, ifjurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 CrPC, if it chooses to quash the initiation of the prosecution againstit chooses to quash the initiation of the prosecution againstit chooses to quash the initiation of the prosecution against an accused at the stage of issuing process, or at the stage ofan accused at the stage of issuing process, or at the stage ofan accused at the stage of issuing process, or at the stage of committal, or even acommittal, or even at the stage of framing of charges. t the stage of framing of charges. 5CRM(M) No. 729/2024CRM(M) No.
729/2024 These are all stagesThese are all stagesThese are all stages before the before the before the commencement of the commencement of the commencement of the actualactualactual trial. trial. trial. The The The same same same parameters parameters parameters would would would naturally naturally naturally be be be available for later stages as well. The power vested in theavailable for later stages as well. The power vested in theavailable for later stages as well.
The power vested in the High Court under Section 482 CrPC, at the stages referreHigh Court under Section 482 CrPC, at the stages referreHigh Court under Section 482 CrPC, at the stages referred to hereinabove, would have farto hereinabove, would have far-reaching consequences,reaching consequences, inasmuchinasmuchinasmuch as as as it it it would would would negate negate negate the the the prosecution's/complainant'sprosecution's/complainant'sprosecution's/complainant's case case case without without without allowing allowing allowing the the the prosecution/complainantprosecution/complainantprosecution/complainant to to to lead lead lead evidence. evidence. evidence. Such Such Such a a a determination must always be rendered with caution, caredetermination must always be rendered with caution, caredetermination must always be rendered with caution, care and circand circumspection. To invoke its inherent jurisdictionumspection.
To invoke its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC the High Court has to be fullyunder Section 482 CrPC the High Court has to be fullyunder Section 482 CrPC the High Court has to be fully satisfied that the material produced by the accused is suchsatisfied that the material produced by the accused is suchsatisfied that the material produced by the accused is such that would lead to the conclusion that his/their defence isthat would lead to the conclusion that his/their defence isthat would lead to the conclusion that his/their defence is based on sound, reasonable, and inbased on sound, reasonable, and inbased on sound, reasonable, and indubitable facts; the material produced is such as would rule out and displacematerial produced is such as would rule out and displacematerial produced is such as would rule out and displace the assertions contained in the charges levelled against thethe assertions contained in the charges levelled against thethe assertions contained in the charges levelled against the accused;accused;accused; and and and the the the material material material produced produced produced is is is such as such as such as would would would clearly reject and overrule the veracity of the allegationsclearly reject and overrule the veracity of the allegationsclearly reject and overrule the veracity of the allegations contacontainedined in in the the accusations accusations levelled levelled by by the the prosecution/complainant.
It should be sufficient to ruleprosecution/complainant. It should be sufficient to ruleprosecution/complainant. It should be sufficient to rule out, reject andout, reject andout, reject and discard the accusations discard the accusations discard the accusations levelled by the levelled by the levelled by the prosecution/complainant,prosecution/complainant,prosecution/complainant, without without without the the the necessity necessity necessity of of of recording any evidence. For this the material reliedrecording any evidence. For this the material reliedrecording any evidence. For this the material relied upon bybyby the the the defence defence defence should should should not not not have have have been been been refuted, refuted, refuted, or or or alternatively, cannot be justifiably refuted, being materialalternatively, cannot be justifiably refuted, being materialalternatively, cannot be justifiably refuted, being material of sterling and impeccable quality.
The material reliedof sterling and impeccable quality. The material reliedof sterling and impeccable quality. The material relied upon by the accused should be such as would persuade aupon by the accused should be such as would persuade aupon by the accused should be such as would persuade a reasonable person to dismiss anreasonable person to dismiss and condemn the actual basisd condemn the actual basis of the accusations as false. In such a situation, the judicialof the accusations as false. In such a situation, the judicialof the accusations as false.
In such a situation, the judicial conscience of the High Court would persuade it to exerciseconscience of the High Court would persuade it to exerciseconscience of the High Court would persuade it to exercise its power under Section 482 CrPC to quash such criminalits power under Section 482 CrPC to quash such criminalits power under Section 482 CrPC to quash such criminal proceedings, for that would prevent abuse of procesproceedings, for that would prevent abuse of procesproceedings, for that would prevent abuse of process of the court, and secure the ends of justice. court, and secure the ends of justice. 30.
BasedBased on on the the factors factors canvassed canvassed in in the the foregoing foregoing paragraphs,paragraphs,paragraphs, we we we would would would delineate delineate delineate the the the following following following steps steps steps to to to determine the veracity of a prayer for quashing raised bydetermine the veracity of a prayer for quashing raised bydetermine the veracity of a prayer for quashing raised by an accused by invoking the power vested inan accused by invoking the power vested inan accused by invoking the power vested in the High Court under Section 482 CrPC:under Section 482 CrPC: 30. 1. Step one30. 1. Step one: whether the material relied upon by the: whether the material relied upon by the accused is sound, reasonable, and indubitable i. e. theaccused is sound, reasonable, and indubitable i. e. theaccused is sound, reasonable, and indubitable i. e. the material is of sterling and impeccable quality? material is of sterling and impeccable quality?
material is of sterling and impeccable quality? 30. 2. Step two30. 2. Step two: whether the material relied upon by the: whether the material relied upon by the accused would rule out the assertions contained in theaccused would rule out the assertions contained in theaccused would rule out the assertions contained in the charges levelled against the accused i. e. the material ischarges levelled against the accused i. e. the material ischarges levelled against the accused i. e. the material is sufficient to reject and overrule the factual assertionssufficient to reject and overrule the factual assertionssufficient to reject and overrule the factual assertions contained in the complaint i. e. the material is such ascontained in the complaint i. e. the material is such ascontained in the complaint i. e. the material is such as wouldwould persuade persuade a a reasonable reasonable pe personrson to to dismiss dismiss and and condemn the factual basis of the accusations as false?
condemn the factual basis of the accusations as false? condemn the factual basis of the accusations as false? 30. 3. Step three30. 3. Step three: whether the material relied upon by the: whether the material relied upon by the accusedaccusedaccused has has has not not not been been been refuted refuted refuted by by by the the the prosecution/complainant; and/or the material is such thatprosecution/complainant; and/or the material is such thatprosecution/complainant; and/or the material is such that ititit cannot cannot cannot be be be justifiably justifiably justifiably ref ref refuted by the prosecution/complainant? prosecution/complainant? 6CRM(M) No. 729/2024CRM(M) No. 729/2024 30. 4. Step four30. 4.
Step four: whether proceeding with the trial would: whether proceeding with the trial would result in an abuse of process of the court, and would notresult in an abuse of process of the court, and would notresult in an abuse of process of the court, and would not serve the ends of justice? serve the ends of justice? 30. 5. 30. 5. If the answer to all the steps is in the affirmative,If the answer to all the steps is in the affirmative, judicial consciejudicial conscience of the High Court should persuade itnce of the High Court should persuade it to quash such criminal proceedings in exercise of powerto quash such criminal proceedings in exercise of powerto quash such criminal proceedings in exercise of power vested in it under Section 482 CrPC. Such exercise ofvested in it under Section 482 CrPC. Such exercise ofvested in it under Section 482 CrPC.
Such exercise of power, besides doing justice to the accused, would savepower, besides doing justice to the accused, would savepower, besides doing justice to the accused, would save precious court time, which would otherwise be wasprecious court time, which would otherwise be wasprecious court time, which would otherwise be wasted in holdingholdingholding such such such a a a trial trial trial (as (as (as well well well as as as proceedings proceedings proceedings arising arising arising therefrom) specially when it is clear that the same wouldtherefrom) specially when it is clear that the same wouldtherefrom) specially when it is clear that the same would not conclude in the conviction of the accused. ”not conclude in the conviction of the accused. ”not conclude in the conviction of the accused. ” 11.
However,However, the the instant petition doesdoesdoes not not not fall fall fall within within within the the the aforesaid aforesaid aforesaid parameters laid down byparameters laid down by the Apex Court, asthe Apex Court, as there was sufficient material on sufficient material on record to frame charges against the petitioner asrecord to frame charges against the petitioner asrecord to frame charges against the petitioner as has been discussed by the trial has been discussed by the trial court in the order impugnedcourt in the order impugned, wherein the trial court was to considerwherein the trial court was to consider the broad the broad probabilities of the case and the totalprobabilities of the case and the total effect of the evidence produced by theeffect of the evidence produced by theeffect of the evidence produced by the prosecution at the stage of framing of charges. Even otherwise, tprosecution at the stage of framing of charges.
Even otherwise, tprosecution at the stage of framing of charges. Even otherwise, this Court whilehis Court while exercising the powers under Section 528 of the BNSSexercising the powers under Section 528 of the BNSSexercising the powers under Section 528 of the BNSS also cannot go into the cannot go into the question or issuequestion or issue whether recovery, evidence and cash has be, evidence and cash has been recovered from from the petitioner or not. All these issuesthe petitioner or not. All these issues/questions/questions are to be dealt with by the trial are to be dealt with by the trial Court, where the trial is pending adjudication. On this count also, the instantCourt, where the trial is pending adjudication. On this count also, the instantCourt, where the trial is pending adjudication. On this count also, the instantCourt, where the trial is pending adjudication. On this count also, the instant petition deserves dismissal. petition deserves dismissal. 12.
Another aspect ofAnother aspect of the matter which is paramomatter which is paramount that the impugned impugned order of framing offraming of charges was passed by the trial Courtpassed by the trial Court on 23. 08. 2022 and the2022 and the petitioner has approached this Court by way of instant petition filed underpetitioner has approached this Court by way of instant petition filed underpetitioner has approached this Court by way of instant petition filed underpetitioner has approached this Court by way of instant petition filed under Section 528 of the BNSS in the year 2024, i. e. , after a delay of two yearsSection 528 of the BNSS in the year 2024, i. e. , after a delay of two yearsSection 528 of the BNSS in the year 2024, i. e.
, after a delay of two years, thus thus, the instant petition suffers from delay and laches and is required to be dismissedthe instant petition suffers from delay and laches and is required to be dismissedthe instant petition suffers from delay and laches and is required to be dismissedthe instant petition suffers from delay and laches and is required to be dismissed on this ground alonethis ground alone, when the said order was gladly and voluntarily accepted by, when the said order was gladly and voluntarily accepted by, when the said order was gladly and voluntarily accepted by the petitioner for almost two yearsthe petitioner for almost two years. 13. The petition underThe petition under 528 of the BNSS ((earlier Section 482 CrPC) shall shall not to be entertained where there isto be entertained where there is inordinate delay and laches. Thisinordinate delay and laches.
This court places court places reliance on the judgement of Hon’ble Delhi High Court inreliance on the judgement of Hon’ble Delhi High Court inreliance on the judgement of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in Vipin Kr. Gupta vs Vipin Kr. Gupta vs 7CRM(M) No. 729/2024CRM(M) No. 729/2024 Sarvesh MahajanSarvesh Mahajan reported in 2019 SCC OnLine Del 123492019 SCC OnLine Del 12349, wherein following wherein following has been held: 11. Now, this Court would like to deal with firstly, the orderNow, this Court would like to deal with firstly, the orderNow, this Court would like to deal with firstly, the order dateddateddated 17. 11. 2014. 17. 11. 2014. 17. 11. 2014. The The The order order order dated dated dated 17. 11. 2014 17. 11. 2014 17. 11.
2014 has has has been been been assailed now, after more than four years of the passing of theassailed now, after more than four years of the passing of theassailed now, after more than four years of the passing of the saidsaidsaid impugned impugned impugned order. order. order. There There There is is is neither neither neither any any any plausible plausible plausible explanationexplanationexplanation nor nor nor any any any sufficient sufficient sufficient cause cause cause in in in the the the petition petition petition to to to approach this Court after such an inordinate delay. I have noapproach this Court after such an inordinate delay. I have noapproach this Court after such an inordinate delay.
I have no hesitationhesitationhesitation to to to hold hold hold that that that if if if the the the Court Court Court fails fails fails to to to take take take into into into consideration delay and laches, while invoking the powers ofconsideration delay and laches, while invoking the powers ofconsideration delay and laches, while invoking the powers of the High Court underthe High Court under Section 482 of the Cr. P. C. Cr. P. C. , without any reasonable ground, there would be no end to the litigation, as areasonable ground, there would be no end to the litigation, as areasonable ground, there would be no end to the litigation, as a consequence whereof, neither any trial would be proceeded norconsequence whereof, neither any trial would be proceeded norconsequence whereof, neither any trial would be proceeded nor any trial would be concluded before the Trial Court. Theany trial would be concluded before the Trial Court. Theany trial would be concluded before the Trial Court.
The impugned order dated 17. 11. 2014impugned order dated 17. 11. 2014 is barred by the principle ofis barred by the principle of delay and laches, to invoke the powers of the High Court underdelay and laches, to invoke the powers of the High Court underdelay and laches, to invoke the powers of the High Court under Section 482482 of the Cr. P. C. , hence, challenge to the impugned, hence, challenge to the impugned order dated 17. 11. 2014 cannot be entertained at this stage afterorder dated 17. 11. 2014 cannot be entertained at this stage afterorder dated 17. 11. 2014 cannot be entertained at this stage after such a long, inordinate delay and lsuch a long, inordinate delay and laches, hence is not liable toaches, hence is not liable to be set aside on this ground alone. In this regard, seebe set aside on this ground alone. In this regard, seebe set aside on this ground alone. In this regard, see Rajesh Chetwal v. State, in Crl. M. C. 1656/2011, decided by this Court, in Crl. M. C.
1656/2011, decided by this Court onon 24. 8. 2011, 24. 8. 2011, Inder Mohan v. TheThe State State, 1972 Cri LJ 1569, GopalGopal Chauhan Chauhan v. Smt. Smt. Satya Satya, 1979 Cri LJ 446 and BataBata v. Anama Behera, 1990 Cri LJ 11101990 Cri LJ 1110. 14. The law is well settled tThe law is well settled that at the stage of framing of charge, the trialstage of framing of charge, the trialstage of framing of charge, the trial court is not to examine andcourt is not to examine and determine in detail the material placed on record by on record by the prosecution, northe prosecution, nor it is for the court to consider the sufficiency of the materialit is for the court to consider the sufficiency of the materialit is for the court to consider the sufficiency of the material to establish the offence alleged against theto establish the offence alleged against the petitionerpetitioner.
At the stage of charge, the the trial court is to examine the material only with the view to satisfy itself that acourt is to examine the material only with the view to satisfy itself that acourt is to examine the material only with the view to satisfy itself that acourt is to examine the material only with the view to satisfy itself that a prima facie case for cocase for commission of offence alleged has been made against themmission of offence alleged has been made against themmission of offence alleged has been made against the accused persons. The trial court should not make a roving enquiry into pros andaccused persons. The trial court should not make a roving enquiry into pros andaccused persons. The trial court should not make a roving enquiry into pros andaccused persons. The trial court should not make a roving enquiry into pros and cons of the matter andcons of the matter and weigh the evidence asthe evidence as if the trial court is conducting a is conducting a trial.
The trial judge at that stage may strial. The trial judge at that stage may sift the evidence for limited purpose butift the evidence for limited purpose butift the evidence for limited purpose but he is not required to marshalhe is not required to marshal the evidence with a view to separate the grain fromthe evidence with a view to separate the grain fromthe evidence with a view to separate the grain from the chaff. It is a settled position of law that admissibility or inadmissibility ofthe chaff. It is a settled position of law that admissibility or inadmissibility ofthe chaff. It is a settled position of law that admissibility or inadmissibility ofthe chaff. It is a settled position of law that admissibility or inadmissibility of the disclosure statement cannot be taken into conthe disclosure statement cannot be taken into conthe disclosure statement cannot be taken into consideration at the stage ofsideration at the stage of framing of charge.
Thus, if the allegation leveled in the police report underframing of charge. Thus, if the allegation leveled in the police report underframing of charge. Thus, if the allegation leveled in the police report underframing of charge. Thus, if the allegation leveled in the police report under 8CRM(M) No. 729/2024CRM(M) No. 729/2024 Section 173(2) Cr. PC,Section 173(2) Cr. PC,Section 173(2) Cr. PC,Section 173(2) Cr.
PC, the statement of witnesses of the prosecution, the statement of witnesses of the prosecution, the statement of witnesses of the prosecution, the statement of witnesses of the prosecution, the the the the disclosure statement of accused person and seizure cum recovery memo are todisclosure statement of accused person and seizure cum recovery memo are todisclosure statement of accused person and seizure cum recovery memo are todisclosure statement of accused person and seizure cum recovery memo are to be taken on consideration,taken on consideration, prima facie there waswas sufficient material as per the as per the order passed by the trail court toorder passed by the trail court to charge-sheet the petitioner for commission ofsheet the petitioner for commission ofsheet the petitioner for commission of offences. Accordingly,.
Accordingly, the reasoned order passed by thepassed by the trial court, whereby the whereby the charges have beenhave been framed against the petitioner and other accusedthe petitioner and other accused persons persons cannot be interfered withcannot be interfered with by this Court. 15. Keeping in view the aforesaid enunciation of law and after perusingKeeping in view the aforesaid enunciation of law and after perusingKeeping in view the aforesaid enunciation of law and after perusingKeeping in view the aforesaid enunciation of law and after perusing the order impugned,the order impugned, this Court is of the considered opinion thatthis Court is of the considered opinion that the instant the instant petition is not maintainableition is not maintainable and deserves dismissaland deserves dismissal. CONCLUSIONCONCLUSION 16.
In view of aforesaid observations,In view of aforesaid observations, this court is not inclinedthis court is not inclined to invoke to invoke the inherent jurisdictionthe inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 BNSS528 BNSS in the instant case with a view case with a view rdrd to quash the impugnedimpugned order dated 13. 08. 2022 passed by the learned 313. 08. 2022 passed by the learned 3 Additional Sessions Judge, NIA Court, JammuAdditional Sessions Judge, NIA Court, JammuAdditional Sessions Judge, NIA Court, Jammu and accordingly, the instant and accordingly, the instant petition is dismissed in liminedismissed in limine along with all connected applicationalong with all connected application(s). (Wasim Sadiq Nargal) Judge JAMMU 25. 09. 2024 Ram Krishan Ram Krishan 2024. 10. 03 13:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
Source: Supreme Court eSCR. Dataset: Dattam Labs, CC BY 4.0. Text extracted automatically; compare with the source PDF for layout and accuracy.