DINESH KUMAR vs STATE & ORS.

Judgment text excerpt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment delivered on: 22.09.2025 + CRL.REV.P. 431/2023 DINESH KUMAR .....Petitioner versus STATE & ORS. .....Respondents Advocates who appeared in this case: For the Petitioner : Mr. S.S. Tripathi & Mr. G.S. Bagga, Advs. with Petitioner in person. For the Respondents : Mr. Raj Kumar, APP for the State for the State SI Pardeep, PS- Mehrauli. Mr. Chandan Gupta & Mr. Rohit Kumar, Advs. for R2 to R4. CORAM HON’BLE MR JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN JUDGMENT 1. The present petition is filed challenging the orders dated 24.01.2023 and 13.02.2023 (hereafter ‘impugned orders’), passed by the learned Trial Court in SC No. 6997/2016 arising out of FIR No. 834/2013 (‘FIR’), registered at Police Station Mehrauli. 2. By the impugned order on charge dated 24.01.2023, the learned Trial Court observed that prima facie, there is sufficient material on Signature Not Verified Signed By:KAMALDEEP KAUR CRL.REV.P. 431/2023 Page 1 of 15 Signing Date:23.09.2025 20:35:34 record for framing charges against the accused respondents for the offences punishable (i) under Section 147 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’), (ii) under Section 323 read with Section 149 of the IPC in alternative under Sections 323/34 of the IPC, (iii) Section 506 read with Section 149 of the IPC in alternative under Sections 506/34 of the IPC, (iv) Section 3(1)(x) of the SC & ST Act, and (v) Section 3(2)(va) of the SC & ST Act. 3. By the impugned order dated 13.02.2023, formal charges were framed against the accused respondents. 4. The petitioner is essentially aggrieved by the fact that charges have not been framed against the accused persons for the offences under Sections 307/452/397/354 of the IPC read with Section 3(1)(s) of the SC & ST Act. 5. The brief facts of the case are as foll