Harish Malhotra vs. State
AI Summary
In this criminal revision petition, Harish Malhotra challenged the charge framing order passed by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate on December 21, 2002. The Delhi High Court, after careful examination of the case record and hearing both sides, found no infirmity, perversity, impropriety, illegality, or jurisdictional error in the lower court's order and dismissed the revision petition.
Case Identifiers
Petitioner's Counsel
Respondent's Counsel
Advocates on Record
eCourtsIndia AITM
Brief Facts Summary
Harish Malhotra was accused in FIR No. 86/2001 registered at Kotwali Police Station in 2001. The Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, after examining the evidence, framed charges against him on December 21, 2002. Dissatisfied with this order, Harish Malhotra filed a Criminal Revision Petition in the Delhi High Court on April 7, 2003, challenging the charge framing order. The High Court, after hearing arguments from both sides, examined the case record and found no legal defects in the lower court's order.
Timeline of Events
FIR No. 86/2001 filed at Kotwali Police Station against Harish Malhotra
Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate framed charges against Harish Malhotra
Criminal Revision Petition No. 291/2003 filed in Delhi High Court
Delhi High Court heard the revision petition and delivered its order dismissing the petition
Key Factual Findings
The order dated December 21, 2002, passed by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate framing charges against the petitioner does not suffer from any infirmity, perversity, impropriety, illegality, or jurisdictional error
Source: Current Court Finding
The impugned order has not occasioned a failure of justice
Source: Current Court Finding
Primary Legal Issues
Questions of Law
Petitioner's Arguments
The petitioner, Harish Malhotra, through his counsel Rahul Gupta and Rakesh Mukhija, argued that the order dated December 21, 2002, passed by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate framing charges against him was legally defective and should be set aside. The specific grounds of challenge are not detailed in the order, but the petitioner sought to demonstrate that the lower court's order suffered from infirmity, perversity, impropriety, illegality, or jurisdictional error.
Respondent's Arguments
The State, represented by V.K. Malik, argued in support of the impugned order, contending that the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate correctly examined the evidence and properly framed charges against the accused. The State sought to uphold the lower court's decision and resist the revision petition.
Court's Reasoning
Justice R.S. Sodhi, after going through the record of the case and the impugned order with the assistance of counsel for both the petitioner and the State, found that the order under challenge does not suffer from any infirmity, perversity, impropriety, illegality, or jurisdictional error, nor has it occasioned a failure of justice. The court was satisfied that the lower court's decision to frame charges was legally sound and properly reasoned. Consequently, the court found no grounds to interfere with the charge framing order.
- Emphasis on Procedural Regularity
- Deference to Lower Court Findings
- Strict Standards for Interference in Criminal Revision
Impugned Orders
Specific Directions
- 1.Criminal Revision Petition No. 291/2003 and Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 505/2003 are dismissed
Precedential Assessment
Persuasive (Other HC)
This is a single judge order from the Delhi High Court dealing with procedural aspects of criminal revision petitions. While it does not establish binding precedent for other courts, it provides persuasive guidance on the standards and grounds for interfering with charge framing orders in criminal revision petitions. The order articulates the principle that High Courts should not lightly interfere with charge framing orders unless they suffer from specific legal defects.
Tips for Legal Practice
Legal Tags
Disclaimer: eCourtsIndia (ECI) is not a lawyer and this analysis is generated by ECI AI, it might make mistakes. This is not a legal advice. Please consult with a qualified legal professional for matters requiring legal expertise.
Order Issued After Hearing
Purpose:
First Hearing
Listed On:
22 Aug 2005
Order Text
| Sr. No. | Date | <b>Orders</b> |
|---|---|---|
| IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI<br>CRL.REV.P. 291/2003 & CRL.M.A.505/2003<br>$\textcolor{red}{\textbf{+}}$<br>HARISH MALHOTRA<br>Petitioner<br>Through Mr.Rahul Gupta and Mr.Rakesh Mukhija,<br>Advocate.<br>versus<br><b>STATE</b><br>Respondent<br>Through Mr. V.K.Malik, Advocate.<br><b>CORAM:</b><br><b>HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.S. SODHI</b><br>ORDER | ||
| $%$<br>22.08.2005 | ||
| $\mathfrak{L}$ | CRL.REV.P. 291/2003 is directed against the order dated<br>21.12.02 of the ACMM whereby the learned ACMM has framed a charge | |
| against the accused. | ||
| assistance of learned<br><b>With</b><br>Counsel for the<br>the | ||
| $\mathcal{P}_t$ | Petitioner and learned Counsel for the State, I have<br>gone | |
| under<br>the record of the case and the order<br>through | ||
| satisfied that the<br>order<br>under<br>challenge.<br>am<br>$\mathbf{I}$ | ||
| infirmity.<br>perversity.<br>suffers<br>from<br>challenge<br>no | ||
| impropriety, illegality or jurisdictional error nor has it occasioned a | ||
| failure of justice. | ||
| CRL.REV.P. 291/2003 & CRL.M.A.505/2003 are dismissed.<br>'SODHI, . | ||
| Signature <b>Not</b> Verified<br>Digitally Signed By: ANIULYA | <b>AUGUST 22, 2005</b><br><b>bp</b> |
$\cdot =$
$\mathcal{L}$
Digitally Signed By:AMULYA<br>Certify that the digital lie and<br>physical file have been compared and<br>the digital data is as per the physical<br>file and no page is missing.
$\overline{a}$
$\widehat{\phantom{a}}$ $\sim$
$\mathcal{J}$
}<br>}
Original Order Copy
Get a certified copy of this order