Delhi District Court
In The Matter M/S Pepsi Foods Ltd. vs . Special Judicial Magistrate In on 9 January, 2019
Ms. Sheetal Chaudhary Pradhan, Metropolitan Magistrate
(Mahila court (SouthEast), Saket Courts, New Delhi.
CRC No. 615077/2016
PS: Amar Colony
U/s : 323/354 IPC
State v. Nand Rani & Ors.
JUDGMENT
Date of institution : 05.07.2013
Cr.C No. : 615077/2016
Name of the complainant : Neetu Khurana
D/o Late Kastoori Lal
R/o H. No. O20, 2nd Floor,
Sriniwaspuri, New Delhi
Name & address of the accused : Ashok
persons S/o Late Sh. Ram Das Khurana
R/o O20, J.J. Colony,
Sriniwaspuri, New Delhi.
Offence Complained of : U/s 200 Cr.P.C.
Offence Charged of : U/s 354/323 IPC
Plea of the accused persons : Pleaded not guilty.
Final Order : Acquitted
Date of arguments : 08.01.2019
Date of announcing of order : 09.01.2019
Neetu Khurana v. Nand Rani & Ors. CC No. 615077/2016 Page No.1/21
BRIEF FACTS:
1. Brief facts of the case are that the complainant had filed a complaint u/s 200 Cr.P.C. r/w Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. before the Court on 05.07.2013. Vide order dated 17.12.2013the application of the complainant u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C was dismissed and the matter was listed for presummoning evidence. During presummoning evidence, complainant examined two witnesses i.e. CW1as herself and CW2 was the husband of the complainant. Pre summoning evidence was closed on 01.04.2015 and subsequently the matter was listed for arguments on point of summoning. Vide order dated 17.07.2015, all accused namely Nand Rani, Satish, Ashok and Joginder were summoned. All accused persons appeared before the Court on 02.12.2015 and matter was referred for mediation but the mediation between the parties failed. During trial, accused Satish had expired and proceedings were abated qua accused Satish. Subsequently, matter was listed for arguments on point of charge and vide order dated 06.09.2017, accused Nand Rani, accused Satish and accused Joginder were discharged and proceedings were initiated only against accused Ashok, as primafacie offence punishable u/s 323/354 IPC was only made out against accused Ashok. Subsequently, in view of the same charge qua accused Ashok Kumar was framed u/s 354/323 IPC vide order dated 06.11.2017 and matter was listed for post charge evidence. During post charge evidence, complainant again examined three witnesses to prove her case and CW1 Ms Meena Kumari, Record Clerk, from Delhi Commission for Women was examined and she deposed that the complaints filed by the Neetu Khurana v. Nand Rani & Ors. CC No. 615077/2016 Page No.2/21 complainant dated 10.01.2013 and 01.03.2012 were filed before the commission and the same were Ex. CW1/A and Ex. CW1/B. CW2 Neetu Khurana, adopted her examination in chief recorded during pre summoning evidence and also relied upon the documents filed by her i.e. document Ex. CW1/A to Ex. CW1/N and document Mark A to Mark L. Further, Om Prakash Khurana being the husband of the complainant was examined as CW3 and witness adopted his evidence recorded during pre summoning evidence.
2. During presummoning evidence, complainant Neetu Khurana examined herself as CW1 and deposed that she was residing at H. No. O20, Second Floor, Sriniwaspuri, New Delhi and she has filed the present complaint against four accused namely Nand Rani (her mother in law), Satish Kumar, Ashok and Joginder (being her brother in laws). The abovesaid property was in the name of her father in law namely Late Sh. Ram Das. After the demise of her father in law, her husband also became the coowner of the property bearing No.O20, Second Floor, Sriniwaspuri, New Delhi which was constructed up to the fourth floor and all the accused persons were residing at the aforesaid property. All the accused on one accused had brutally beaten, abused, misbehaved and demanded dowry. Accused No.2 to 4 had on many occasions tried to misbehave and make illicit relation with her and abused her in filthy language. Accused Ashok who was her jeth on 18.11.2012 had slapped her thrice without any reason. Again on 07.01.2013, acc used Ashok Kumar slapped her twice without any reason and she had filed a Neetu Khurana v. Nand Rani & Ors. CC No. 615077/2016 Page No.3/21 complaint against accused and other persons. Accused Ashok in collusion with accused Nand Rani (since discharged) had also cut her electricity connection and the same was done with the intention to grab her property and she was living without electricity. When her husband was in jail in September, 2013 and she was going down from the second floor, at that time accused Ashok caught hold of her right hand and misbehaved with her and abused her. Accused Joginder (since discharged) also came inside her house in the year 2013, in the absence of her husband and misbehaved with her. He husband returned back home and made a call at 100 number. Police did not take any action against the accused persons. Accused Satish (since discharged) had pulled her hair alongwith other accused persons. Accused Nand Rani (since discharged) in collusion filed a case against her and her husband. She was even harassed and beaten by accused persons during the course of trial.
3. During crossexamination on behalf of accused she deposed that she was a housewife and a graduate. She had placed on record documents to show that property bearing no. O20, Sriniwaspuri was the property in the name of her fatherinlaw. Thereafter, upon seeing judicial file, it was found that no such document was available on record. On 18.11.2012, she was beaten and abused by the accused persons. She had lodged the police complaint about the said incident on 18.11.2012 and had placed on record the police complaint dated 18.11.2012. Thereafter, upon seeing judicial file, it was found that no Neetu Khurana v. Nand Rani & Ors. CC No. 615077/2016 Page No.4/21 such document was available on record. She had also not visited any doctor for getting treatment regarding the injury. She had not lodged any police complaint on 07.01.2013 as stated by her in her examination before the court. She was not aware whether the suit filed by her husband for restoring electricity connection had been dismissed by the court. She could not recall in which case her husband was in jail in September 2013. She could not recall the date when the accused Ashok misbehaved with her in September 2013. Her neighbors were present when the incident happened with her in September 2013. She admitted that she had not placed on record any police complaint as regarding incident on September 2013. It was correct that she and her husband had been convicted by the trial court in the complaint lodged by Nand Rani. She could not tell where her affidavit was attested. She had signed her affidavit in the court. She had lodged the complaint after discussing with her husband. She had gone through the contents of her complaint filed in the court. It was correct that she was having property dispute with the accused persons. It was correct that her motherinlaw had refused to give her any share in property no. O20, Sriniwaspuri. It was correct that she had filed the present case in order to get her share in Property no. O20, Sriniwaspuri.
4. During pre summoning evidence CW Om Prakash Khurana deposed that he was residing at House No.O20, Second Floor, Sriniwaspuri, New Delhi and was the husband of complainant. The above property was in the name of his father namely Late Ram Das and Neetu Khurana v. Nand Rani & Ors. CC No. 615077/2016 Page No.5/21 after the demise of his father in the year 1982, he had become the co owner of the property and was residing on second floor. The aforesaid property was constructed till the fourth floor and all the accused persons were residing in the same property. All the accused persons on several occasions had tried to misbehave with the complainant and make illicit relation with the complainant (being his wife) and also used filthy language. Accused Ashok was his elder brother and on 18.11.2012, had slapped his wife thrice without any reason. On 07.01.2013, accused had again given his wife two slaps without any reason and his wife had filed a complaint against the accused persons. Accused Ashok with the collusion of Nand Rani (since discharged) had also disconnected the electricity connection and all accused persons were trying to grab his property and he has been living without any electricity since December, 2011. After his release from the jail in the month of March, 2014, his wife had told him that when she was going down from the second floor, accused caught of her right hand and misbehaved with her and abused her. He was told by his wife that accused Joginder (since discharged) also came inside the house in the year 2012 when he was out and misbehaved with the complainant and that he was a habitual drunker. He made a call at 100 number. Police did not take any action against the accused persons. In December, 2012, accused Satish (since discharged) had also pulled hair of his wife alongwith other accused persons. His mother had filed false case against him and the complainant and even harassed the complainant during the pendency of the trial. He had visited the police station to lodge a complaint but police refused to take any action and all the accused persons have been threatening to kill him and Neetu Khurana v. Nand Rani & Ors. CC No. 615077/2016 Page No.6/21 his wife.
5. During crossexamination on behalf of accused CW Om Prakash Khurana deposed that he was an auto driver. He was not present on 18.11.2012 when the accused no.3 Ashok slapped his wife. His wife told him about the incident in the night when he returned home after driving auto. He had made call on 100 number and also lodged complaint in the police chowkiSriniwaspuri. He had not placed on record the call details made on 100 number nor the police complaint made on 18.11.2012. He was not present on 07.01.2013 when the accused Ashok slapped his wife. He again said that he was present at that time on 07.01.2013. He had lodged police complaint on 07.01.2013 against the accused Ashok. It was wrong to suggest that there was no complaint dated 07.01.2013 on the record as no such incident took place. It was correct that he had filed a suit for mandatory injunction seeking restoration of electricity which has already been dismissed as withdrawn by Ld. SCJ. On 18.12.2012, accused Satish had pulled hair of his wife and he was accompanied by other coaccused. It was wrong to suggest that he had not placed on record complaint dt. 18.12.2012 as no such incident took place on that day. It was correct that on the complaint lodged by his mother namely Nand Rani, he had already been convicted by the Court of Ld. MM, Ms. Ankita Lal.
6. Thereafter, complainant's evidence was closed and statement of accused Ashok was recorded u/s 313 Cr. P.C wherein all incriminating Neetu Khurana v. Nand Rani & Ors. CC No. 615077/2016 Page No.7/21 evidence was put to accused. Accused denied the allegations of complainant as false and pleaded false implication.
7. Accused examined himself u/s 315 CrPC as a witness in his defence.
8. DW1 Ashok (accused) deposed that complainant was the wife of his younger brother namely Om Prakash. Complainant and his brother Om Prakash got married in the year 2000. Aforesaid premises had ground floor, first floor, second floor and third floor. Since the marriage of the complainant with his brother Om Prakash, they have been residing on the second floor of the aforesaid premises having one room set, kitchen and washroom. At that time, he was residing on the ground floor and the first floor with his mother and complainant alongwith her husband for the first three months of their marriage, used to visit them on the ground and the first floor. However, within three months, he could realise that the intentions of the complainant and her husband were not good since they used to ill treat his mother by misbehaving with her. His mother used to often tell him regarding the behaviour of the complainant and her husband towards her but since they were newly wed, he did not want to interfere in their marriage and remained quiet. After one year, his mother told him that complainant's husband namely Om Prakash had taken away all her valuable, jewellery, documents of the house from her. His mother also told him by crying that complainant's husband has taken away all her savings and used to harass her. Further, complainant alongwith her husband had taken away all the Neetu Khurana v. Nand Rani & Ors. CC No. 615077/2016 Page No.8/21 cash amount in the possession of his mother and had withdrawn all the cash from her bank account amounting to Rs.1,20,000/ by forging his mother's signature. He was also told by his mother that if she refused to give her money to complainant and Om Prakash, she would given severe beatings by complainant and her husband by locking her inside a room. At that time, he used to go for his work in the morning and come back in evening and whenever he got time, he confronted his brother Om Prakash and advised him not to misbehave with mother, however, the behaviour of Om Prakash and his wife did not change towards his mother and the same had started almost in the year 2001. After 34 years on one occasion, they gave severe beatings to his mother because of which, she suffered injuries in her leg and thereafter, filed a complaint to the police by giving a 100 number call. However, the matter was pacified being a family matter and no action was taken by the police against the complainant and her husband. One of his younger brother namely Joginder Kumar who was not having employment used to sometimes come and reside with his mother and complainant alongwith her husband also poisoned his mind by stating ill things towards him and his mother and thereafter, his younger brother Joginder Kumar also came under the influence and control of complainant and her husband. Complainant alongwith her husband started taking control of all the house and created trouble for him and his mother. Husband of the complainant created ruckus in the house by destroying the property and vandalizing the house and on one occasion, had even put fire on the second floor just to trouble them. Thereafter, within 45 years, there were several cases registered against the husband of complainant in Neetu Khurana v. Nand Rani & Ors. CC No. 615077/2016 Page No.9/21 which he had even undergone punishment in Jail. Even then, the behaviour of complainant and her husband did not change towards him and his mother. On several occasions, complainant alongwith her husband had threatened him by taking name of some criminals and goons. On several occasions, he had been attacked at the behest of complainant and her husband. About two years ago, husband of complainant had undergone sentence for about eight months in a case related to dishonour of cheque. On one occasion, 23 unknown persons visited his shop who introduced themselves to be known to his brother and sent by his brother Om Prakash as they had met him in Jail. Aforesaid persons asked him regarding the matter between him and his brother Om Prakash and upon hearing, told him that they have been sent by his brother Om Prakash as he wanted him to be killed. He came to know regarding the ill intention of his brother Om Prakash that he wanted to kill him. Complainant alongwith her husband has been harassing them by creating nuisance and putting garbage in front and backside of the entire house. The intention of the complainant and her husband was only to usurp the property belonging to his mother and also to kill him. Complainant and her husband had even harassed his one of the brothers (coaccused) namely Satish who had already expired due to the tensions given by the complainant and her husband alongwith his brother Joginder. His brother Joginder was tutored by the complainant and her husband and because of the same, he comes every day and threatens him and his mother and harassed them. Both the complainant and her husband with the intention to kill his mother were mentally and physically harassing them and the only intention of the complainant and Neetu Khurana v. Nand Rani & Ors. CC No. 615077/2016 Page No.10/21 her husband was to usurp the property by any means. He had been falsely implicated by the complainant in the present matter and had not committed any offence against the complainant on 20.07.2011 or prior thereto or subsequently. On one of the occasions, his mother had filed a complaint at the SDM office in which his brother Om Prakash was directed to pay Rs.1000/ as maintenance to his mother but nothing had been paid to her by Om Prakash. His father had expired in the year 1980 and was the owner of the property mentioned above and after his death the property was transferred in the name of his mother in the year 1984. In the year 2011, husband of complainant tried to manipulate the documents by preparing a forged Power of Attorney to procure a separate electricity connection in his name and the same was rejected by the concerned department. He relied upon the copy of letter dated 17.10.1984 in which it was stated that the mutation papers were accepted in the name of his mother and the same was mark DX1. The copy of the order dated 18.01.1996 of the MCD pertaining to the property in the name of his mother was mark DX2. The order of the SEM court (Tribunal for Maintenance and Welfare of parents and Senior Citizens, South District) dated 29.12.2011 was mark DX3. The copy of complaint given to the concerned court by husband of the complainant dated 10.01.2012 regarding the fact that Om Prakash had stated the fact of vacating the premises and undertaking in the court before Special Executive Magistrate was mark DX4. Further, a criminal complaint u/s 200 CrPC filed by his mother in the concerned court of PS Amar Colony and the documents pertaining to the same and proceedings were mark DX4 (colly 1 & 2) and the certified copy of the judgment dated Neetu Khurana v. Nand Rani & Ors. CC No. 615077/2016 Page No.11/21 28.03.2018 where the complainant, her husband Om Prakash and his brother Joginder had been convicted was mark DX5. The forged copy of the GPA, Agreement to Sell allegedly prepared by husband of complainant to procure electricity meter in his name was mark DX6 and DX7. The copy of the demand notice dated 08.10.2016 addressed to the husband of complainant was mark DX8 and the copy of the letter dated 10.03.2016 for conciliation proceedings was mark DX9 and the copy of the letter dated 20.12.2014 of ICICI Bank was mark DX10. The copy of the civil suit for mandatory injunction filed by his mother against the husband of the complainant and the judgment and order dated 08.06.2017 of the SCJ court u/s 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC was mark DX11. The copy of the order of the SCJ court dated 09.10.2017 filed by husband of complainant against his mother which was withdrawn by him was mark DX12. He also relied upon a CD prepared by him after recording the incidents of harassment committed by the complainant and her husband by conniving with the police officials for past 45 years was Ex.DX13 and the certificate u/s 65B IEA was Ex.DX14. Further, DW1 stated that during the proceedings before SEM Court, even the complainant was sent to imprisonment.
During crossexamination DW1 deposed that the original allottee of the property bearing No.O20, J.J. Colony, Sriniwaspuri, New Delhi was his father. His father was expired on 14.05.1980. His father had died by executing a Will. He had seen the Will but he did not remember the date of the same. He did not have the copy of the said Will. He did not remember the date of mutation when the property of his Neetu Khurana v. Nand Rani & Ors. CC No. 615077/2016 Page No.12/21 father was mutated in the name of his mother but it was in the year 1984. It was correct that second floor in one room set of the property was in the possession of complainant and her husband Om Prakash. It was also correct that the second room of second floor was also in the possession of complainant and her husband. He did not remember if husband of complainant namely Om Prakash was in jail in September, 2013. It was correct that in the year 2012, complainant had filed a complaint against him because of which, he was sent to lockup by SEM court for one day. Thereafter, two photographs were shown to the witness which he admits to be his and were mark A1 and A2. Upon being asked, the witness denied the date of clicking the photographs. Witness stated that in photograph mark A1, he was getting off on third floor and in document mark A2, he was near the stairs of third floor. The complainant had sent to jail by SEM court in kalandra u/s 107/151 CrPC but he did not remember the exact date of the same. He had never filed any complaint against the complainant or her husband before any court. However, he had filed the same before the police authorities. He had not filed the copy of aforesaid complaints. He did not rely upon the CD Ex.DX13 and certificate Ex.DX14. He did not remember the date on which Om Prakash had sent people to kill him, was in the year 2014, however, he had details regarding the same in his phone. He had not given any complaint to the police on that day. He did not give a call on 100 number. He voluntarily stated that he had mentioned it to the police officials who used to remain on the police beat duty. He did not remember the date or year in which the complainant's husband had taken Neetu Khurana v. Nand Rani & Ors. CC No. 615077/2016 Page No.13/21 away the jewellery, documents, money from his mother. The incidents of beating his mother by locking her in the room by the complainant and her husband took place between 2001 to 2006 and the same used to happen very often. His mother had filed a complaint against the complainant and her husband in which a case u/s 323 IPC was filed. The copy of the judgment was mark DX5. He again stated that he did not remember if he had filed any complaint against the complainant and her husband regarding their beatings to his mother between 2001 to 2006. It was correct that his wife had left him before the year 2000 and she had filed the case u/s 498A/406 IPC against him and in that case, he had been acquitted. It was correct that an appeal was pending in the sessions court against the order of conviction in view of judgment mark DX5.
9. Ld. counsel for complainant has argued that in the present matter, complainant has categorically mentioned the manner in which the accused had committed the act of sexual assault on her by giving beatings to her and the same was done with the intention to outrage her modesty. It is further argued that the averments in the complaint and in the presummoning evidence as well as postcharge evidence the complainant and the witnesses examined by the complainant have deposed the manner of commission of offence by the accused persons. Further, at the time of trial the complainant had prima facie made out the offence against the accused persons and therefore, they were summoned and accordingly, accused Ashok is liable to be convicted for the offences charged.
Neetu Khurana v. Nand Rani & Ors. CC No. 615077/2016 Page No.14/2110. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for accused persons have argued that in the present matter, accused persons have been falsely implicated by the complainant. It is an admitted fact that complainant and accused Ashok are relatives and accused Ashok is the brother in law of the complainant. It has been argued that it is a settled law which is reiterated in the matter M/s Pepsi Foods Ltd. Vs. Special Judicial Magistrate in Crl. No.1019 of 1997 wherein it has been stated "summoning of an accused in a criminal case is a serious matter. Criminal law cannot be set into motion as a matter of course. It is not that the complainant has to bring only two witnesses to support his allegations in the complaint to have the criminal law set into motion. The order of the Magistrate summoning the accused must reflect that he had applied his mind to the facts of the case and the law applicable thereto. He has to examine the nature of allegations made in the complaint and the evidence both oral and documentary in support thereof and would that be sufficient for the complainant to succeed in bringing charge home to the accused. It is not that the Magistrate is a silent spectator at the time of recording of preliminary evidence before summoning of the accused. Magistrate has to carefully scrutinise the evidence brought on record and may even himself put questions to the complainant and his witnesses to elicit answers to find out the truthfulness of the allegations or otherwise and then examine if any offence is prima facie committed by all or any of the accused." He has argued that in the present matter, accused Ashok has been charged for the offence punishable u/s 354/323 IPC. Further, in the present matter the allegations levelled against the accused are Neetu Khurana v. Nand Rani & Ors. CC No. 615077/2016 Page No.15/21 completely false and fabricated, which is apparent from the fact that the complainant has failed to disclose any of the date, time, month or year of any such incidents where she was allegedly beaten or sexually assaulted by the accused Ashok. The complaint filed by the complainant u/s 200 CrPC is completely vague and the allegations mentioned in para 4, 5, 6 are again vague and fanciful as they do not inspire confidence being not specific. It is also argued that though the complainant has filed her documents Ex.CW1/A and Ex.CW1/B being complaints to Mahila Ayog, the same are subsequent to the alleged offence dated 28.11.2012 and 07.01.2013 which are not corroborated with the complaint or testimony of the complainant. It is also argued that the complainant has failed to substantiate her allegations by placing on record any document or by leading any cogent evidence. It is also argued that the allegations of the complainant revolve around two incidents dated 28.11.2012 and 07.01.2013 wherein the allegations of slapping are included but it is admitted by the complainant that after none of the alleged incidents, she visited any doctor for getting her medically examined. Further, it is also admitted by the complainant that she had filed the present complaint only with the intention to get her share in the property and the complainant has also admitted that the property in which she is claiming right is now in the name of her mother in law after the death of her father in law. It is also argued that the complainant has admitted that she had not been granted any relief by the Ld. Civil Judge during her complaint filed and also admits that she and her husband had been convicted in a case of assault by Ld. MM, Ms. Ankita Lal in the criminal complaint case filed against them by their mother Nand Rani. It is also argued that Neetu Khurana v. Nand Rani & Ors. CC No. 615077/2016 Page No.16/21 the claims made by the complainant are baseless and are devoid of merit and that the complainant has failed to prove the same by leading any cogent evidence. It is also argued that the only witness examined by the complainant in support of her allegations is her own husband who has admitted during his crossexamination that he was not present on any of the dates when the alleged incident of beating or misbehaving with the complainant have taken place and therefore, he is only a hearsay witness. It is argued that the complainant is liable to be prosecuted for initiating false case against the accused persons and the accused Ashok is liable to be acquitted. He has further argued that there is no specific details in respect to the threats extended by the accused to the complainant or her husband and the same are vague. He has further argued that there are no specific allegations against accused Ashok and there are only bald averments which do not inspire confidence. It is also argued that the complainant has failed to place on record any relevant document to show that she had suffered injuries on the date of incident and no offence is made out against the accused Ashok and the complainant has failed to show the manner in which the alleged incident took place. He has argued that no case is made out against the accused Ashok and therefore, he is liable to be acquitted.
11. I have heard Ld. Counsel for complainant as well as for the accused and carefully gone through the material available on record and I am of the considered view that in the present matter complainant has failed to prove the guilt of the accused Ashok beyond reasonable doubt by leading any cogent evidence. In the present matter, complainant is Neetu Khurana v. Nand Rani & Ors. CC No. 615077/2016 Page No.17/21 the star witness of the complaint filed by her and also the victim in the present matter. However, she has failed to depose even a single averment which could reflect the manner of commission of offence if any, committed by accused Ashok. The complainant has not deposed on the lines of her complaint filed u/s 200 CrPC and fails to narrate a single incident or a date on which the accused Ashok had allegedly misbehaved with her with the intention to outrage her modesty. None of the witnesses have stated with precision the manner of commission of offence and the husband of the complainant who is the sole independent witness examined by the complainant have also not stated that he had witnessed any of the incidents of beating or misbehaviour with his wife by accused Ashok, being his brother. Further, if we carefully peruse the testimony of CW Om Prakash Khurana, it is only of hearsay nature and was never present on the spot when the alleged incidents occurred. Further, despite the fact that the complainant has stated during her cross examination that when the incident of beatings occurred there were public persons, but the complainant has not examined any such witness to corroborate her statement. Further, CW Om Prakash Khurana being the husband of complainant is an interested witness and therefore, is not a reliable witness.
12. In the present matter, admittedly, complainant and the accused are related to each other and are residing in the same house that is House No.O20, J.J. Colony, Sriniwaspuri, Delhi. The complainant is residing alongwith her husband on the second floor and the accused being her brother in law is residing with old aged mother around 90 years on the Neetu Khurana v. Nand Rani & Ors. CC No. 615077/2016 Page No.18/21 ground and the first floor. In the present matter, accused has been charged for the offence punishable u/s 354/323 IPC. To bring home the guilt of the accused, it was required for the complainant to prove that the accused assaulted the complainant and used criminal force against her with the intention to outrage her modesty and while doing so, the accused knew that the modesty of the complainant shall be outraged and further, during the said occasions, he even caused simple hurt to the complainant, allegedly by slapping her on 18.11.2012 and 07.01.2013. However, in the present matter, the complaint filed by the complainant u/s 200 CrPC mentions in para 5, 6 and 7 that accused persons on many occasions had brutally, abused, misbehaved and demanded dowry from the complainant without any reason for many years and therefore, on one occasion she had made a call at 100 number. Further, accused No.2 to 4 (accused No.3 and 4 since already discharged) even tried to make illicit relations with the complainant and used filthy language towards her and harassed and tortured her. However, in none of the aforesaid averments, the complainant has mentioned the date of any such alleged incidents of misbehaviour, beating, harassment, abuses, illicit relation and filthy language used by the accused persons towards her. Further, the complainant herself admits that the same had occurred with her for several years, however, she again fails to even narrate the years from which such incidents of misbehaviour, beating, harassment, abuses, illicit relation and filthy language commenced and the last date of such incidents, so as to gather the date of such incidents which allegedly occurred with her. In my considered view, the aforesaid allegations of the complainant are completely vague and bereft of details. More so, the Neetu Khurana v. Nand Rani & Ors. CC No. 615077/2016 Page No.19/21 contents of the complaint filed by the complainant are not corroborated by her during her testimony before the court and the complainant conveniently abdicates herself from even narrating or explaining such allegations which are ranging from beatings, harassment, dowry demand, sexual assault, illicit relations, disconnection of electricity, right in the property, share in the property to slapping. Further, if we carefully peruse the documents placed relied upon by the complainant, they are not substantiating the allegations levelled by the complainant against the accused and pertains to some different proceedings between the parties and that too after the filing of the present complaint and not prior thereto or of the alleged incidents of 18.11.2012 and 07.01.2013. In fact, complainant Neetu Khurana during her crossexamination has admitted that she had not filed any complaint with the police or the alleged dates of incident dated 18.11.2012 or 07.01.2013 and also admitted that she was already having property dispute with the accused persons and that her mother in law had refused to give her any share in the property bearing No.O20, Sriniwaspuri, Delhi. She further admitted that she had filed the present case only with the intention to get a share in the property bearing No.O20, Sriniwaspuri which is in the name of her mother in law after the demise of her father in law. Further, during her crossexamination, she has also admitted that her neighbourers were present when the incident happened in September, 2013 but the complainant very conveniently fails to examine any such neighbourers or public witnesses to substantiate her claim. It is further seen that in the present matter, CW Om Prakash Khurana has also admitted that he had filed a civil suit against his mother which has been already dismissed Neetu Khurana v. Nand Rani & Ors. CC No. 615077/2016 Page No.20/21 and a criminal complaint filed by his mother against him and the complainant is already decided in which they have been convicted and therefore, false implication of the accused cannot be ruled out.
13. Therefore, in my considered view none of the allegations of the complainant stand proved by leading any cogent evidence or placing on record any document regarding any alleged beatings, medical record in respect to the present matter. There are several contradictions in the testimony of the two witnesses examined by the complainant. Accordingly, no incriminating evidence is placed on record against accused Ashok and therefore, the complainant has failed to prove the guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubt and accused Ashok stands acquitted for the offences u/s 323/354A IPC.
Application disposed off accordingly.
Announced in Open Court Sheetal Chaudhary Pradhan)
on 09.01.2019 Metropolitan Magistrate
Mahila Court/SED/Saket/New Delhi.
Digitally
signed by
SHEETAL
SHEETAL CHAUDHARY
CHAUDHARY PRADHAN
PRADHAN Date:
2019.01.10
15:43:24
+0530
Neetu Khurana v. Nand Rani & Ors. CC No. 615077/2016 Page No.21/21