Parvinder Shoukeen @ Neetu v. State Govt. of NCT of Delhi

ORDER o/o

02.11.2011

¶1This is petition u/s 482 Cr.P.C. against the order dated ^

24.08.2011 passed by the learned District Judge & ASJ Incharge

(West) Delhi, by virtue of which the order dated

20.03.2011 passed by the learned Magistrate discharging petitioner/accused was set aside and a charge u/s 354/323/341 IPG was directed to be framed. The learned ASJ has specifically observed that while discharging present petitioner learned Magistrate had not taken cognizance of supplementary statement, dated V

03.04.2007 made by the complainant stating that Neetu @ Parvinder Shaukeen, while riding a motorcycle, was one of persons who had along with other un-ruly boys outraged the modesty of the complainant. The present petitioner was also identified by the complainant. This was considered sufficient by the learned ASJ to warrant framing of the charge against him. Certify that the digital and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing. >• z

¶2The learned counsel for the petitioner has not placed the copy of the supplementary statement on record. Learned counsel for the petitioner prays for some time to do the same, which Is disallowed.

¶3I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner on the matter. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that no prima facie evidence Is on record to warrant the framing of the charge against the petitioner. I do not find any Infirmity or Illegality in the Impugned order passed by the learned ASJ setting aside the order of the learned Magistrate of discharging the accused and framing • charge against him for committing an offence u/s 354/323/341 IPG on basis of supplementary statement of the complainant. At the stage of framing of the charge, what is required to be seen by the Court is whether there Is a prima facie evidence on record against the accused person or not. Noticeably, in the present case complainant in her supplementary statement has implicated the present petitioner. This fact has not been taken into consideration by the learned Magistrate while as before this Court also, the petitioner has ignored to place on record this statement. The learned Sessions Judge has specifically referred to this statement and concluded that a prima facie case Is made out. Accordingly, petition does not have any merit, the same is dismissed. NOVEMBER 02, 2011 mr V.K. SHALI, J

/ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRLM.C. 3595/2011 PARVINDER SHOUKEEN @ NEETU Petitioner Through: Mr. Vivek Kumar, Advocate versus STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI Respondent Through: i^r.Sunil Sharma, APP CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. SHALI