Read Time: 11 minutes
“Any decision by this Court in its revisional jurisdiction to discharge the accused by setting aside the Trial Court’s order on charge, at the stage when the trial is just about to conclude, would be unmerited. The evidence, which either the prosecution or the defence relies upon, will be filtered, distilled and tested in the crucible of the trial”, the bench of Justice Anish Dayal highlighted.
The Delhi High Court, recently, dismissed a revision petition filed by an accused Salim Malik challenging the framing of charges by the sessions court. The court, referring to the case of Om Prakash Yadav v. Niranjan Kumar Upadhyay [2024 INSC 979] emphasized “Courts must avoid the premature staying or quashing of criminal trials at the preliminary stage since such a measure may cause great damage to the evidence that may have to adduced before the appropriate Trial Court”.
As per the prosecution, a PCR call was received on 24th February 2020 regarding incidents of rioting and arson at a showroom in Bhajanpura, Delhi. Sub-Inspector Shiv Charan visited the site and found the showroom damaged and set on fire by a mob.
On 28th February 2020, the showroom’s General Manager, Rajesh Singh, filed a complaint stating the showroom had been closed due to riots and that he was informed of the arson on 25th February 2020. Based on his complaint and subsequent investigation, an FIR was registered on 5th March 2020 and another complaint was filed on 27th February 2020 by a showroom employee, Vikas, alleging his motorcycle was set ablaze by the mob.
Efforts to identify suspects involved reviewing CCTV footage, social media videos, and public testimonies. On 4th May 2020, the first charge sheet was filed against four individuals, excluding Salim Malik, and the case was committed to the Sessions Court in January 2021. Malik, arrested on 30th October 2020, was granted bail in November 2020, as he was neither named in the FIR nor directly implicated.
Subsequently, supplementary charge sheets were filed in 2021, 2022, and 2023, involving additional accused persons. While the Sessions Court noted evidence suggesting Malik’s presence as part of an unlawful assembly engaged in rioting and arson, the prosecution relied on witness statements and CDR analysis to establish his involvement. Malik contested these claims, arguing that the evidence lacked credibility and specificity to substantiate the allegations.
Malik, through Senior Advocate Nitya Ramakrishnan, argued that the charges were based on inadmissible disclosures, delayed and unreliable witness statements, and insufficient evidence linking him to the alleged offences of arson and vandalism at Fair Deal Cars Pvt. Ltd. Senior Advocate Ramakrishnan further contended that the material on record failed to establish any overt act or shared common object with the unlawful assembly.
Special Public Prosecutor Madhukar Pandey, for the State, contended that the trial court appropriately assessed the evidence and framed charges based on strong suspicion against Malik. The prosecution relied on witness statements and CCTV footage that allegedly established Malik’s involvement in inciting unlawful assemblies through inflammatory speeches, which led to violent riots, arson, and attacks on police personnel.
Per SSP Pandey argued that per the investigation Malik not only organized the protests but also played a key role in a conspiracy, including a meeting on February 22, 2020, where plans for violence, arson, and destruction were discussed.
The court noted that the prosecution primarily relied on the statement of Constable Mukesh, recorded on 30th October 2020, who stated that as a beat officer at Chand Bagh, he had visited the protest site on the day of the incident, where anti-police speeches, including those by Malik, were being made. The court further observed that Malik’s case to quash the charges was based on statements of the police officer who was at the protest site.
The court outlined that “A careful perusal of the statement of Ct. Mukesh, on which the petitioner heavily relied upon, does not, in the opinion of the Court, at least prima facie, completely exclude the possibility of presence of petitioner at the site of the incident or as part of the mob”
The court further opined, “At this stage, where there is a statement of Ct. Mukesh on record, which makes a specific allegation inter alia against petitioner, this Court is of the opinion that the view of the Sessions Court was not incorrect in framing the charges”.
The court also outlined that revisional courts should not quash charges unless there were compelling reasons to do so in the interest of justice and to prevent abuse of the judicial process, reserving such actions for exceptional and rare cases.
The court noted that the current issue was whether it could dismiss police testimony at a stage when the trial was incomplete, particularly given the absence of overt allegations against Malik. The court, referring to the supreme court case of State of Rajasthan v. Ashok Kumar Kashyap [(2021) 11 SCC 191], further highlighted that the “Court’s role while framing charges or discharging an accused is limited to determining that the prosecution’s material, taken at face value, establishes sufficient grounds for proceeding, without delving into merits, conducting a mini-trial, for assessing the probative value of the evidence”.
Therefore, the court dismissed the petition noting that no “impropriety, illegality or infirmity with the impugned order passed by the Sessions Court”.
Recently, the Supreme Court dismissed the bail plea filed by Gulfisha Fatima. Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal argued that Fatima 'has been in custody for over 4 years'.
For Petitioner: Senior Advocate Nitya Ramakrishnan with Advocates Archit Krishna, Tamanna Pankaj, Stuti Rai and Pooja MehtaFor Respondent: Special Public Prosecutor Madhukar Pandey with Advocates Aviral Bansal and Daksh SachdevaCase Title: Salim Malik @ Munna v State (2024:DHC:9820)
Please Login or Register
