VIKRAM MALIK Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision petition is directed against the order framing charges and the charges framed by the Additional Sessions Judge under Sections 452/34 and 307/34 of Indian Penal Code.

(2.) The petitioner, Vikram Malik, is the son of the principal accused Sandeep Malik. He pleads that no charge could be framed against him by using Section 34 of IPC. As per the allegations against him he did nothing except having accompanied the principal accused to the premises of the complainant. The gist of the FIR, which was recorded at the instance of the complainant Dinesh Gogna, is that Rs.56 lakhs were due from Sandeep Malik in respect of which Sandeep Malik had given him a note; that on the fateful day Sandeep Malik and his son Vikram Malik entered his shop and Sandeep Malik threatened the complainant and demanded the hand-written note for Rs.56 lakhs at that very moment which the complainant refused and that thereon Sandeep Malik suddenly attacked him with a knife which he had brought concealed in the shawl. Further it is alleged in the complaint that as Rakesh Kumar, also present at the spot, came to save him. Rakesh Kumar fell on the ground and Sandeep Malik hit Rakesh with intention to kill him and as the complainant raised an alaram and people gathered there, Sandeep Malik and Vikram Malik were overpowered.

(3.) It is clear that the allegations against Vikram Malik is simply that he had accompanied Sandeep Malik to the shop of the complainant. There is no specific allegation that Vikram Malik participated in the crime, namely, attacking the complainant with a knife or injuring Rakesh Kumar with intention to kill. There is no allegation that Vikram Malik helped in the commission of the offence in any way. There is no allegation that he knew that the principal accused Sandeep Malik was carrying a knife under his shawl. The question is whether in this situation, he can be charged for the same offences for which Sandeep Malik was charged by use of Section 34 of IPC.