Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.
1. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the-order on charge dated 22.09.2005, which is impugned in this petition, cannot be sustained inasmuch as there is no discussion whatsoever with regard to even the establishment of a prima facie case under Section 307/34 IPC insofar as the petitioners are concerned.
2. He submitted that on 26.09.1998, it is alleged that an incident took place at 14/6A, Mangal Bazar Road, Tilak Nagar, New Delhi for which an FIR of the same date was registered at the instance of the complainant [Om Prakash] against the present petitioners under Section 323/341 IPC. He submitted that in the said premises, the ground floor is occupied by one Rekha Ahuja. The first floor was occupied by the present petitioners as tenants. The second floor was in the occupation of the complainant [Om Prakash]. He submitted that there was some litigation between the said Rekha Ahuja and the said Om Prakash with regard to the ownership of the second floor of the said building. It is an admitted position that Rekha Ahuja was the owner of the ground floor and the first floor of the premises. He further submitted that after the registration of the FIR, one of the petitioners, namely, Dr Sukhdev Kumar filed a complaint with the police stating that they have been falsely implicated by the complainant [Om Prakash].
3. Subsequently, after about 9-10 months, on 09.07.1999, a complaint case was filed by Smt Santosh Chawla, who is the wife of the said Om Prakash. In this complaint case, for the first time, the allegations with regard to an offence under Section 307 IPC were mentioned. The court asked for a police report under Section 156(3) CrPC pursuant to the said complaint case. As per the report submitted by the police, it is clear that an inquiry was conducted and statements of Smt Santosh Chawla and Om Prakash Chawla were recorded. It was the conclusion in the report that the complaint case relates to the very incident which took place on 26.09.1998 in respect of which there was already an FIR No. 725/98 which had been registered and that there was no other medical document showing more or further injury than previously mentioned by the doctor in FIR No. 725/98 to support the version of the complainant in the complaint case. It was, therefore, requested that the complaint case be filed.
4. However, the proceedings went on and ultimately, by the proceedings dated 22.09.2005, the learned Additional Sessions Judge has, inter alia, framed the charges under Sections 307/34 IPC against the present petitioners and the co-accused [Rekha Ahuja]. The conclusion arrived at by the court while passing the order on charge reads as under:
So, it is admitted fact in this present case that the incident took place with the husband of the present complainant on 26.9.98 and State case was registered Under Sections 323/34 IPC initially and later on after giving the opinion by the Doctor regarding the nature of injury as Grievous, Section 325 IPC was added and thereafter the wife of the complainant Omprakash Chawla named Santosh Chawla filed the complaint against all the three accused persons and same was after demanding the report from the concerned Police Station and as per the materials available on file the Ld. MM took the cognizance and compliance of Section 208 Cr.P.C. and then Under Section 210 Cr.PC. Sent this file for clubbing the trial to Ld. District and Sessions Judge to mark the same for its trial and it was received by this Court for its trial. In consideration of the totality facts and circumstances and as per the arguments made by Sh. M.S. Sasan Adv. on behalf of Accused Sukhdev and Amit Kaur as well as Sh. S.K. Gulati Adv for accused Rekha Ahuja that may be the defense of them. So, at the stage of framing the charge as per Section 228 Cr.P.C. only prima facie evidence should be considered by the court. So, I am of the considered view that there is prima facie evidence against accused Sukhdev and Amrit Kaur for the commission of offence Under Section 325/34 IPC in State Case as well as evidence against accused Sukhdev, Amrit Kaur and Rekha Under Section 307/34 IPC in another complaint case. So, charge be framed accordingly. As per Section 210 Cr.P.C. both the cases are clubbed and evidence will be recorded common in both the cases.
At this stage Charge has been framed separately against the accused persons to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Hence now the case is fixed for PE and PWs be summoned for Evidence on 28-10-05.
A perusal of the above conclusion as also the entire order itself indicates that the court, while framing charges, has not even discussed the material on record even for the purposes of arriving at a prima facie conclusion. It has only recorded its conclusions without there being any discussion with regard to the material on record insofar as the alleged offence under Section 307/34 IPC was concerned.
5. Having heard the counsel for the parties, I feel that this is a fit case where the matter should be remanded to the learned Additional Sessions Judge for a reconsideration on the question of charge on arguments to be advanced afresh by the counsel for the parties.
6. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside. The matter is remanded to the court of Mr Bharat Parashar, the successor court, for consideration of framing of charges afresh. He shall be uninfluenced by any observations made in this order. The parties shall appear before the said court on 24.07.2006, the date already fixed in the matter.
This revision petition stands disposed of.