Delhi District Court
Sh.Rajesh Kumar vs Smt. Premlata Garg on 18 March, 2014
1
IN THE COURT OF SH. NAROTTAM KAUSHAL,
SPECIAL JUDGE (PC Act)05, (ACB), (CENTRAL),
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
Date of Institution: 18.03.2014
Date of pronouncing the Judgment : 18.03.2014
Crl. Complaint Case No.02/14
Case ID No.:02401R0130412014
In the matter of :
Sh.Rajesh Kumar
S/o Sh. Upender Thakur
R/o F1/30, Krishna Nagar,
Delhi51 .......Complainant
VERSUS
1 Smt. Premlata Garg, Principal
DAV Public School,
Shreshtha Vihar Branch, Delhi110092
2 Sh. Nanak chand
Husband of Smt. Premlata Garg
R/o H.No.38, 2nd Floor, Surya Niketan,
Delhi110092
3 Ms. Shruti
D/o Smt. Premlata Garg
4 Ms. Nirmiti
D/o Smt. Premlata Garg
Having office at:
1, Glound Floor,
Sarita Vihar, Delhi
..........Respondents
Argued by : Sh.Puneet Goel, ld. counsel for the complainant
Rajesh Kumar Vs. Premlata Garg, Principal Page 1 of 8
2
JUDGEMENT
1.1 This order will dispose of complaint u/sec.200 r/w/sec.156 (3) Cr.P.C. filed against Principal of a school, her married daughters and her husband.
1.2 It is the case of the complainant that respondent no.1 is working as Principal in D.A.V. Public School for the last 10 years and is a public servant in terms of sec.2 (c) (viii) & (xii) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter called as 'POC Act'). It is further pleaded that D.A.V. Public School is a recognised Private School and affiliated to CBSE. Registration of FIR for offences u/sec.12, 13 (i) (c) &
(d) & 15 of POC Act and u/sec.202 IPC is prayed for. Alternatively, it has been prayed to summon, try & punish the respondents for the aforesaid offences.
2 It is pleaded that respondent no.1 is residing in a house, whose present value is about Rs.3,00,00,000/. It is next alleged that her husband purchased a portion of Ground Floor in property bearing no.1, Sarita Vihar, measuring about 150 sq. yards. It is further the case of the complainant that her daughter has opened a boutique from the funds generated by respondent no.1. Respondent no.1 incurred expenditure of about 2 Crore and and 2.5 Crore, respectively on the marriages of her daughters. Further, the family owns 3 Cars of the make Ritz, Swift Dzire & Maruti Esteem. The family sometime earlier went on a tour to Europe Rajesh Kumar Vs. Premlata Garg, Principal Page 2 of 8 3 and might have spent about Rs.25,00,000/. Complaint has 'strong apprehension' that expenses for aforesaid purchases were incurred by respondent no.1 from income generated by 'unreasonable' sources. The vehicles owned by DAV Public School are used by respondents no.2 to 4, who are liable for abetting respondent no.1 and also liable for not stopping respondent no.1 from committing the offences and for enjoying the disproportionate assets owned by her. It was the duty of respondent nos.2 to 4 to have reported to the police that respondent no.1 was committing offences, which they did not report and are, therefore, liable to be punished u/sec.202 IPC.
3.1 Sh. Puneet Goel, ld. counsel for the complainant has submitted that respondent no.1, who is Principal of Private School is a public servant, as defined in sec.2 (c) (viii) and (xii) of POC Act. She has amassed wealth, which is beyond the sources of her income, as a school Principal. Direction should, therefore, be issued to the Police to make an enquiry and register FIR against her for offence punishable u/sec.13 (i)
(c) of POC Act. Ld. Counsel has relied on law laid down in Lalita Kumari Vs Government of UP & Ors. (Writ petition (Criminal) No.68/2008) decided on 12.11.2013.
3.2 On a pointed query by the court about the other sources of income of family of respondent, ld. counsel submitted that complainant Rajesh Kumar Vs. Premlata Garg, Principal Page 3 of 8 4 has no knowledge or information of these facts. Complainant also expressed his lack of knowledge regarding the vocation, business or source of income of respondent no.2 i.e. husband of respondent no.1. 4.1 I have heard Sh.Puneet Goel, Adv. and perused the complaint. The first issue that arises is whether respondent no.1 is a public servant, so as to fall within the ambit of POC Act. Though, it is pleaded that DAV Public School is recognized by Delhi Government and affiliated to CBSE; yet, there is no pleading that the school is getting any financial assistance from the State Government. Nonetheless, this court is not recoding any finding on this issue, at this stage. 4.2 The second issue that requires consideration is whether the allegations contained in the complaint constitute a cognizable offence for this court to take cognizance. I am of the opinion that this court is duty bound to evaluate the allegations to reach at a conclusion whether the complaint is genuine or is designed to harass the respondents. In Guruduth Prabhu and Ors. Vs. Krishna Bhat and Ors. reported as 1999 Cri LJ 3909, it was observed as under: "If every complaint filed u/sec.200 Cr.P.C. is referred to the Police u/sec.156 (3) without application of mind about the disclosure of an offence, there is every likelihood of unscrupulous complainants, in order to harass the alleged accused named by them in their complaints, making bald Rajesh Kumar Vs. Premlata Garg, Principal Page 4 of 8 5 allegations just to see that the alleged accused are harassed by the police, who have no other go except to investigate as ordered by the Magistrate. Therefore, it is mandatory for the Magistrate to apply his mind to the allegations made in the complaint and in only cases which disclose an offence, the Magistrate gets jurisdiction to order an investigation by the police."
Relying upon the aforesaid judgment, Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in State Vs. Mohd. Iqbal Ghazi reported as (2008) 154 DLT 481 held as under: "It is apparent that the principle that every information relateable to the commission of a cognizable offence must lead to the registration of a FIR has to be understood in its correct perspective, being that, if the information is prima facie credible; is definite and has a substance, the FIR must be registered. But where the information is vague and prima facie lacks credibility, an FIR need not be registered and some preliminary inquiry would be permissible to find out whether the information sought to be lodged has any substance therein or not."
4.3 Seeking registration of FIR for possessing disproportionate assets without referring to or without pleading known sources of income of respondent, is highly mischievous. It is a deliberate attempt by the complainant to mislead the court and conceal the material fact about other sources of income of family. It is not the case of the complainant that husband of respondent no.1 is not gainfully employed. It is not the case of the complainant that the only known source of income of the Rajesh Kumar Vs. Premlata Garg, Principal Page 5 of 8 6 family is the salary of respondent no.1 from the school. It is also not the case of the complainant that respondent no.1 is the sole earning member of the family or that there is no income from rental or agricultural pursuits. Seeking to lodge prosecution on half baked information and apparent concealment of facts is nothing short of malicious prosecution. Attempt to implicate the entire family, even married daughters is nothing but an abuse of the process of court. 4.4 A perusal of the complaint, further, reveals that the complainant has not made any averment of facts, attributable to his knowledge. The words chosen are that the complainant has 'strong apprehension' that respondent no.1 has purchased property by generating income from proceeds of crime. There, ofcourse, is no sworn affidavit of these allegations. Apparently, complainant is shooting arrows in the dark hoping and expecting to cause some damage to the respondents.
4.5 Moreover, the prayer clause is not in conformity with the allegations made in body of complaint. FIR is sought to be registered for the offences punishable u/sec.12, 13 (i) (c) & (d) & 15 of POC Act. The necessary ingredients for offences punishable u/sec.12 & 13 (i) (d) of POC Act are demand and acceptance of illegal gratification; qua which, there is no allegation in the complaint. As regards offence punishable u/sec. 13 (i) (c), the only averment is that respondents use vehicles Rajesh Kumar Vs. Premlata Garg, Principal Page 6 of 8 7 owned by DAV public School. This is a very vague allegation. Use of school vehicles by principal for her personal use may be permissible under the School Rules/ Regulations. There is no averment that such use is not permissible. There is no averment that the property has been misappropriated or converted into personal property. 4.6 The ambit of sec.12 & 15 of POC Act are absolutely different & divergent. Sec.12 of POC Act envisages abettment of offences punishable u/sec.7 & 11 of POC Act, for which there is no allegation in the complaint. Sec.15 of POC Act provides for punishment for commission of offence punishable u/sec. 13 (i) (c) & (d) of POC Act. As noticed in para 4.5 above, there is no allegation of offence punishable u/sec.13 (i) (d) of the POC Act. As regards allegations of offences punishable u/sec. 13 (i) (c) of the POC Act, the same has been discussed in para 4.3 above. As regards offence punishable u/sec.202 IPC, I am of the opinion that as discussed in para 4.3 above, complainant has concealed other known sources of income of family of respondent no.1. Seeking to implicate all family members of respondent no.1, on the allegations that they did not inform the police of offence committed by respondent no.1 is too far fetched an allegation. As noticed above, the allegations levelled against respondent no.1 are too sketchy & too vague to indicate any commission of offence punishable under the POC Act. Allegations of offence as defined u/sec.201 IPC. against her family members is atrociously preposterous.
Rajesh Kumar Vs. Premlata Garg, Principal Page 7 of 8 8 5.1 The Law Laid down in Lalita Kumari's case (supra) is not applicable on the facts of the present case, as the analysis of the allegations as discussed in paras4 above does not constitute a cognizable offence.
5.2 For the reasons stated above, I am of the opinion that present misconceived complaint does not deserve to be investigated or enquired into by the police. This court also declines to take cognizance of the offences alleged and afford opportunity to the complainant to examine witnesses; as no cognizable offence is disclosed to have been committed on the allegations as spelled out in the complaint. The present complaint, along with, the application u/sec. 156 (3) Cr.P.C. is, therefore, dismissed.
Announced in the open Court (NAROTTAM KAUSHAL)
on 18.03.2014. SPECIAL JUDGE (PC ACT)05
(ACB), TIS HAZARI COURTS
Rajesh Kumar Vs. Premlata Garg, Principal Page 8 of 8