Delhi District Court
Ram Shanker Gupta vs . Ram Babu Gupta & Anr. on 29 January, 2021
IN THE COURT OF MS. CHARU GUPTA,
CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, DISTRICT SOUTH, SAKET COURTS
COMPLEX, NEW DELHI.
CNR No.DLST020001412013
CT No.463148/2016
IN THE MATTER OF:
Ram Shanker Gupta Vs. Ram Babu Gupta & Anr.
PS Ambedkar Nagar
U/s. 506 Part I/34 of IPC
JUDGMENT
A) Sl. No. of the case : CT No.463148/2016 B) The date of commission of offence : 08.06.2006, 10.06.2006, 23.06.2006 and 13.07.2006.
C) The name of the complainant : Ram Shanker Gupta D) The name and address of accused : 1. Ram Babu Gupta S/o House No.97, Sector37, Faridabad.
2. Pradeep Gupta S/o Sh. Ram Babu Gupta, R/o House NO.33A, BlockH, Dakshin Puri, New Delhi.
Also At Shop on ground floor, At 330A, BlockH, Dakshinpuri, New Delhi.
E) Offences complained of : Section 506 Part I/34 IPC CT No.463148/2016 Ram Shanker Gupta Vs. Babu Gupta Page No.1 of 21 F) The plea of accused persons : Not guilty G) Final Order : Acquitted H) The date of such Order : 29.01.2021 Date of Institution : 20.02.2009 Date of Final Arguments : 10.12.2020 Date of Judgment : 29.01.2021 THE BRIEF REASONS FOR THE JUDGMENT:
1. Present is a complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. filed by the complainant alleging that he is an auto driver residing at the 2nd Floor of House No.330A, BlockH, Dakshinpuri with roof rights i.e. the property of accused no.1, as a tenant. Accused no.2 is son of accused no.1. Accused persons are residents of Faridabad and run a shop at the ground floor of the above property. Complainant entered into an oral tenancy with accused no.2 on behalf of accused no.1 in 2003 at a rent of Rs.800/ per month (inclusive of electricity and water charges). The advance monthly rent used to be collected by accused no.2 on 10 th day of each calender month. No rent receipts were issued as the property is a JJ Colony and accused only had possessory right qua the same.
2. Complainant paid rent upto 10.06.2006 however when his money order for payment of rent was returned unaccepted by the accused no.1, he approached accused no.2. On 08.06.2006, accused no.2 also refused to receive the rent and asked the complainant to vacate the house immediately. He also threatened the complainant with dire consequences if CT No.463148/2016 Ram Shanker Gupta Vs. Babu Gupta Page No.2 of 21 latter failed to vacate the house.
3. Shocked by the behavior of accused no.2, complainant again on 10.06.2006 requested him to extend time as complaint was in process of finding a new accommodation. On this, accused no.2 intimidated to throw away all household goods and articles of the complainant from the premises, beat him and disconnect his electricity and water. On 11.06.2006, complainant filed a complaint with PS Dakshinpuri, but no action was taken.
4. On 23.06.2006, when complainant was returning home after plying his auto, he received a call from his son who said "papa bijli aur pani ka connection kat diya aur kuch log ghar ke bahar apka intizar kar rahein hain." This scared the complainant. He advised his son not to come out of his house and himself went to stay in the house of his daughter since then till 03.07.2006.
5. On 25.06.2006, complainant lodged another complaint through his son Madhav Gupta in PS Ambedkar Nagar informing about disconnection of water & electricity and seeking security, hoewver police did not taken any action. Complainant again reported the matter to Police Commissioner vide complaint dated 01.07.2006. Thereafter, complainant filed a suit for permanent injunction against accused no.2. Accused no.2 appeared before the court and denied to be owner of the said premises while confirming accused no.1 to be the owner. Accused no.1, who was also present in the court admitted the tenancy of the complainant. The same was recorded in the order dated 23.06.2006. Complainant later CT No.463148/2016 Ram Shanker Gupta Vs. Babu Gupta Page No.3 of 21 withdrew this suit due to misjoinder and another civil suit was filed against both the accused persons. In this suit, vide order dated 27.07.2006 an injunction restraining the accused persons from evicting the complainant without due process of law was passed by Sh. Brijesh Kumar Garg, the then Ld. Civil Judge. In such order, the court also recorded that the submission of accused persons claiming complainant to be in illegal possession and liable to be thrown out without due process of law.
6. It has been alleged that despite such restrain order, accused persons did not open the lock of the stair case leading to the roof of the premises. Items of complainant like cot, cooler, bedding and other goods are still lying on the roof top which the complainant has not been allowed to take due to such lock. When complainant protested against putting of such lock in violation of the injunction order, accused no.1 and 2 threatened the complainant to face various litigations. Complainant also received threats from phone no.9313561374, 9818040250 and 9350803423 wherein the caller namely Lalit Goel claimed to have purchased the property in question against advance payment of Rs.4 lacs to accused persons. Such caller also extended threats to murder the entire family of complainant if he failed to vacate the tenanted accommodation immediately. He also threated to implicate complainant and his son in false cases and put them behind the bars. Such call was received from phone no.9210300911.
7. On 13.07.2006, accused persons visited the house of complainant and again threatened him with dire consequences despite CT No.463148/2016 Ram Shanker Gupta Vs. Babu Gupta Page No.4 of 21 stating before Ld. Civil and in the injunction suit, on 12.07.2006, that they had compromised the matter with complainant. Thereafter, complainant received call from PS Dakshinpuri informing him that a complaint had been registered against him. On 28.06.2006, complainant had to move the court of Ld. ASJ for seeking anticipatory bail which was granted. This reflects on the fact that the accused persons have effected the threat extended by them.
8. Complainant also approached the court of Ld. Rent Controller Sh. B.S. Chumbak where exparte evidence against accused persons for providing basic amenities was recorded on 06.11.2006. On 04.09.2006, accused persons along with three others visited the house of complainant and again threated him to vacate the tenanted premises failing which he and his family members would be murdered as even the possession of the shop at the ground floor had been given to such persons. It is alleged that since then accused persons have vacated the shop at the ground floor to give effect to their criminal acts.
9. Despite various complaints, police has failed to take necessary action. Hence a complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C.
10. Complainant led presummoning evidence. Vide order dated 11.10.2006, court took cognizance of offence under Section 506 IPC and summoned the accused persons. Thereafter, precharge evidence was led wherein complainant examined himself as CW1. He was duly cross examined by Ld. defence counsel. Thereafter, arguments were heard on the point of framing of notice and vide order dated 16.07.2012, notice CT No.463148/2016 Ram Shanker Gupta Vs. Babu Gupta Page No.5 of 21 under Section 506 Part I r/w Section 34 IPC was directed to be framed qua accused persons. Complainant preferred an appeal against such order on charge which was declined. On 31.05.2013, notice under Section 506 Part I/34 IPC was framed qua both accused to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
11. Thereafter, the matter proceeded to complainant evidence wherein complainant examined only himself as CW1. He adopted his statement recorded during presummoning evidence on 10.10.2007 and relied upon the following documents:
A. Ex.CW1/1: Ration Card;
B. Ex.CW1/2: Driving Licence;
C. MarkA: Copy of order of the Vacation Judge, dated
23.06.2006;
D. MarkB: Copy of complaint to the SHO, PS Ambedkar Nagar,
dated 11.06.2006;
E. MarkC: Copy of complaint to the SHO, PS Ambedkar Nagar,
dated 25.06.2006;
F. MarkD: Copy of the order passed by Sh. Brijesh Kumar Garg,
Ld. Civil Judge, Tis Hazari, Delhi, dated 27.07.2007; G. Ex.CW1/8: Complaint submitted to Police Commissioner, Delhi, DCP, South, New Delhi, Ministry of Home Affairs and NHRC, with proof of receipts at Point A to D. In his testimony recorded on 10.10.2007, he deposed that he is tenant of accused no.1 Ram Babu Gupta, on whose behalf accused no.1 CT No.463148/2016 Ram Shanker Gupta Vs. Babu Gupta Page No.6 of 21 Pradeep Gupta received the rent. He was running a shop on the ground floor. He filed copy ration card Ex.CW1/1 and DL Ex.CW1/2 is of the same address. He went to accused no.2 to tender the rent Rs.800/ payable to accused no.1. The accused no.2 declined to receive the rent and immediately asked the CW1 to vacate the house within two days. He again went on 10.06.2006 to give the rent. Then he again asked the CW1 to vacate the house failing which he would cut the electricity and water connection. CW1 asked more time to vacate the house. Accused no. 1 and 2 both intimidated to throw away the goods and belonging, if the house was not vacated along with disconnection of the electricity and water. CW 1 went to PS on 11.06.2006 and reported the matter to the police station vide report Ex.CW1/6.
On 11.06.2006 in the night the electricity and water was disconnected. Police did not act on his complaint. The accused no.1 and 2 also locked the roof top of the complainant which was under tenancy and goods of the complainant are still lying. He deposed that he does not know the name of the two accused who locked the rooftop. On returning home, his wife told him that Pradeep Gupta and Ram Babu Gupta both went to the roof and locked the rooftop. On the next day, he met with a counsel and prepared for filing of civil suit which was marked to Ms. Nivedita Anil Sharma who was Vacation Judge at that time. He filed the civil suit against Pradeep Gupta who was receiving the rent on behalf of Ram Babu Gupta wherein Pradeep Gupta stated that he is not the land lord and his father Sh. Ram Babu Gupta is the landlord/owner of the property. After CT No.463148/2016 Ram Shanker Gupta Vs. Babu Gupta Page No.7 of 21 summoning the said matter Ram Babu Gupta stated on oath that he is the landlord and owner of the property. Copy of statement and order of Hon'ble Court is Ex.CW1/5. After statement before the vacation judge, the electricity wsa stored but water remained disconnected. On the next day on restoration of electricity, the same was again disconnected as the suit before the Vacation Judge was withdrawn. The electricity was disconnected in the night and he reported the matter on 25.06.2006 to PS. The said complaint is Ex.CW1/6. CW1 again filed civil suit against Ram Babu Gupta. The Hon'ble Court passed the order dated 27.07.2006 to restrain the defendant no.1 and 2, the accused herein not to dispossess him without the process of law. Copy of order is Ex.CW1/9. He also complaint the matter to the Police Commissioner IP Estate on the intimidation by the accused persons to beat and tear the hands and legs and also throw away the households from the tenanted house. The complaint dated 01.07.2006 is Ex.CW1/8 along with intimidating telephones call which telephones number are given in the same. The caller stated his name Lalit Goel, the same has been received by my telephone number. CW1 has to change the SIM to avoid the said intimidating calls. The telephone number was known to Sh. Pradeep Gupta and none else. He was taking water in the morning at 05:00 am as stated in said exhibit wherein Sh. Pradeep Gupta was involved along with Bhori Lal Balmik and his wife. About 57 persons were there he was alone and therefore he fled away. Manhandling was done by those people and his pots of water was thrown away. He called on 100 number. He also CT No.463148/2016 Ram Shanker Gupta Vs. Babu Gupta Page No.8 of 21 recorded his statement with PCR Van as stated in said exhibit. He sent the copy of complaint Ex.CW1/8 to Ministry of Home, C.P. Mr. K.K. Paul and also to Human Right Commission. The police has not taken any action against complaint made by him in the police station.
He was thoroughly crossexamined by Ld. Defence Counsel.
12. Upon conclusion of complainant evidence, statements of accused persons were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C wherein all the incriminating material was put to them. Accused persons pleaded innocence and denied the case of complainant to be false and concocted. Accused persons lead their defence evidence by examining Sh. Purshotam Kushwaha as DW1, Sh. Mahavir Bansal as DW2 and himself i.e. Ram Babu Gupta as DW3.
13. DW1 Sh. Purshotam Kushwaha deposed that he come to this Hon'ble Court by his own. He deposing before this Hon'ble Court with his own wish without any pressure or coercion or undue influence. He has come to this Hon'ble Court to give statement in context of Ram Babu Gupta and Ram Shankar Gupta. He deposed that he can read English and he can understand little much English.
He correctly identified Ram Shanker Gupta, who was present in the court on that day. Ram Shakar Gupta was his tenant in the year 2001 and now he had evicted his premises in the month of December, 2001. He had inducted his 2nd and 3rd floor in his house No.J151 to Ram Shankar Gupta a tenant for rent of Rs.4,000/ per month excluding electricity and water charges. Before leaving his house by Ram Shankar CT No.463148/2016 Ram Shanker Gupta Vs. Babu Gupta Page No.9 of 21 Gupta, he had not paid the rent for 6 months and electricity and water charges for the said period.
In the year 2006, he was passing through a house wherein on the ground floor, 34 persons were sitting where he saw a political banner bearing the photograph of Ram Shankar Gupta and then, he asked to those persons as to who is the owner of this house. In reply to that, one of them introduced himself to be Sh. Pradeep Gupta who stated that his father is the owner of this property and Ram Shankar Gupta is the tenant of his father. Then, he thought that one more person has been trapped by Ram Shankar Gupta. He informed to Pradeep Gupta that Ram Shankar Gupta was his tenant in the year 2001 and now he had evicted my premises in the month of December, 2001. He had inducted my 2 nd and 3rd floors of his house no.J151 to Ram Shankar Gupta a tenant for rent of Rs.4,000/ per month excluding electricity and water charge. Before leaving my house by Ram Shankar Gupta, he had not paid the rent for 6 months and electricity and water charges for the said period.
In the month of August, 2001, Ram Shankar Gupta told him that he was running a shop of sale purchase of Video Cassettes including some cassettes of blue films etc due to which Ram Shankar Gupta used to earn a very handsome amount in Eta, UP and due to some disturbance, he had to run from that place to Delhi. He also informed that Ram Shankar Gupta was involved in notorious activities in Eta, UP. On listening this, he was frightened and then after 23 days, he asked Ram Shankar Gupta two photographs and ID proof for police verification, but he did not provide the CT No.463148/2016 Ram Shanker Gupta Vs. Babu Gupta Page No.10 of 21 same to him. Rather, he threatened him as to you do not know to him, who is he. And he further threatened him that he could retain the possession of your house illegally without paying rent to you. Then, he made a complaint to SHO, PS Ambedkar Nagar on dated 21.08.2001, copy of which is Mark DW1/A which bears my signatures at Point A. He further forwarded the copy of the aforesaid complaint to ACP, Greater Kailash on dated 24.08.2001, copy of which is Mark DW1/B, running in two pages, which bears his signatures at Point A and he further made a complaint to DCP, South, Hauz Khas, Delhi on dated 24.08.2001, copy of which is Mark DW 1/C which bears his signatures at Point A. He further made a complaint to Human Rights Commission, Sardar Patel Bhawan, Sansad Marg, New Delhi on dated 31.08.2001, copy of which is Mark DW1/D, running in 3 pages, which bears his signatures at point A. On dated 03.12.2001 (19.12.2001). he received a letter from Human Right Commission wherein it was stated that the copy of complaint give by him had been forwarded to the DCP, South, Hauz Khas, Delhi. The said letter is Ex.DW1/E (OSR). Ram Shankar Gupta brought police persons to his house and threatened him that "You should not harass Ram Shankar Gupta, otherwise he would illegally retain your house". In fact, he had never harassed Ram Shankar Gupta in his life. He handed over the photocopies of aforementioned complaints to Pradeep Gupta in the year 2006.
Due to complaint given by him to the police officials and other authorities as mentioned above 23 police personnels (who were helping and supporting to Ram Shankar Gupta, to harass him) were transfer to the CT No.463148/2016 Ram Shanker Gupta Vs. Babu Gupta Page No.11 of 21 other District and therefore, Ram Shankar Gupta in fear of him being involve in any problem due to said transferred, had shifted from his house to adjacent house bearing no.J150, Dakshinpuri, Ambedkar Nagar by transferring his belongings from the top roof of his house no.150, Dakshinpuri secretly, without informing to me and in this way, he has left my house without paying rent to me. He had come to this Hon'ble Court to apprise his suffering caused by Ram Shankar Gupta during his tenancy in his house with the hope that none may suffer from his misdeed and notorious act. Whatever he has stated here is completely true and correct to the best of my knowledge.
14. DW2 Sh. Mahavir Bansal deposed that he has come to this Hon'ble Court on his own wish without any pressure or coercion or undue influence. He has come to this Hon'ble Court to give statement in context of Ram Babu Gupta and Ram Shankar Gupta. He can read English, but he cannot understand the meaning of the same. He has a shop of paint and hardware by the name of Vaishali Paint and Hardware Shop in his residence at ground floor. He opened his shop at 07:30 AM and remained there till 09:30 PM. He has been living at the aforesaid house from the year 1988. He knew very well Ram Gupta used to live at H. no.H330A, Dakshinpuri, Dr. Ambedkar Nagar till 2005 approximately as he recollected. He deposed that Ram Shankar Gupta is a notorious type of person who files false complaints against neighbourers and blackmails them. He deposed that Ram Shankar Gupta filed a false suit against him which was dismissed by the court of Sh. Vishal Pahuja, CJ02 (South) vide order CT No.463148/2016 Ram Shanker Gupta Vs. Babu Gupta Page No.12 of 21 dated 30.09.2014 which is Ex.DW2/A (OSR). He deposed that Ram Shankar Gupta further filed an appeal against the said order which was also got dismissed by the court of Ms. Pooja Talwar, Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Saket Court.
15. DW3 Sh. Ram Babu Gupta deposed that in the year 2004, Ram Shankar Gupta was inducted as tenant in house No.H330A, 2 nd Floor, Dakshinpuri, Dr. Ambedkar Nagar, New Delhi by him. Tenancy was oral. At that time of inception of tenancy, one Mahavir Bansal was present along with him. The rent of the tenanted premises was Rs.2100/ excluding electricity and water. In the presence of Mahavir Bansal, the complainant had paid his first rent for a sum of Rs.2100/ to him in cash. From December, 2005 till date, complainant had not paid rent to him. He filed a suit for recovery of arrears of rent in the year 2007 against complainant in respect of tenanted premises which has been partly decreed vide order dated 12.04.2018 passed by Ms. Richa Sharma, the then Ld. Civil Judge (West), Tis Hazari Court which is Ex.DW3/A (OSR). He never extended any threat to complainant for asking the rent. In the whole month of June, 2006, he did not go to H330A, Dakshinpuri, Dr. Ambedkar Nagar, New Delhi. He did not know hos is Hori Lal Valmiki and Lalit Goyal. The present case filed by the complainant against him and his son is false and fabricated as al the allegations made in the present complaint case are false. The complainant has prepared one false NOC containing wherein declaration that complainant is the owner of 2nd floor of H330A, Dakshinpuri, Dr. Ambedkar Nagar and gave to his son Madhav Gupta for CT No.463148/2016 Ram Shanker Gupta Vs. Babu Gupta Page No.13 of 21 obtaining TIN number from Trade and Taxes Department of Delhi. He lodged one FIR bearing no.436/13, under Section 420/468/34 IPC PS I.P. Estate dated 27.11.2013 against Ram Shankar Gupta and his son Madhav Gupta which is Ex.DW3/B. He deposed that the complainant is not physically residing in the tenanted premises presently and has only put his lock for retaining the possession of the same. He has never threatened to complainant for throwing his articles from the tenanted premises nor has threatened to disconnect his electricity or water connection for getting the tenanted premise vacated. He had never given terrace of the house bearing no.H330A, Dakshinpuri, Dr. Ambedkar Nagar as part of tenancy to complainant. He always received the rent of Rs.2100/ from complainant himself. His family member has never received rent from complainant on his behalf. Deposed that he is still owner of the tenanted premises and same has not been sold to anyone. He never got extended any threat against complainant nor by his son or anyone else ever. He and his son had been falsely implicated in the present case for retaining the possession of tenated premises illegally by complainant. He deposed that present case is false and fabricated.
16. All the defence witnesses were duly crossexamined by Ld. Counsel for complainant upon conclusion of defence evidence, final arguments of both the parties were heard at length.
COURT OBSERVATION:
17. It is the case of the complainant that the accused persons in furtherance of their common intentions, have intimidated complainant to CT No.463148/2016 Ram Shanker Gupta Vs. Babu Gupta Page No.14 of 21 throw away his goods and belongings from the rented house and disconnect his electricity and water connection in order to drive him away from the tenanted premises and as such be convicted under Section 506 Part I/34 IPC. Per contra it is the defence of accused persons that complainant has filed a false case with a view to grabbing the property of the accused no.1 in which complainant was inducted as a tenant. Ld. Defence counsel has cited discrepancies and contradiction in the case of complainant to establish falsity of his claim.
Before adverting the merits of the case, provision of Section 506 Part I of IPC is reproduced hereunder:
"506. Punishment for criminal intimidation. --Whoever commits the offence of criminal intimidation shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both; if threat be to cause death or grievous hurt, etc."
Criminal intimidation is defined under Section 503 IPC as "whoever threatens another with any injury to his person, reputation or property, or to the person or reputation of any one in whom that person is interested, with intent to cause alarm to that person, or to cause that person to do any act which he is not legally bound to do, or to omit to do any act which that person is legally entitled to do, as the means of avoiding the execution of such threat, commits criminal intimidation.
CT No.463148/2016 Ram Shanker Gupta Vs. Babu Gupta Page No.15 of 21 Explanation.--A threat to injure the reputation of any deceased person in whom the person threatened is interested, is within this section.
Illustration A, for the purpose of inducing B to desist from prosecuting a civil suit, threatens to burn B's house. A is guilty of criminal intimidation.
18. As such for establishing a case of criminal intimidation, it must be proved that there was a threat of injury to person, reputation or property and existence of intention to cause alarm to the victim or cause the victim to do any act which such victim would not have otherwise done. The threat must be real and with intention to cause alarm. It has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Manik Taneja Vs. State of Karnataka [(2015) 7 SCC 423] that mere expression of any words without any intention to cause alarm would not be sufficient to bring in the application of this Section. Intention has to be gathered from the circumstances. It has been held by Hon'ble High Court of Orissa in Amulya Kumar Behera Vs. Nabaghana Behera & Ors [1995 (II) OLR 97] that intention is a mental condition which has to be gathered from the circumstances of the case. The threat must be intended to cause alarm from which it follows that, ordinarily, it would be sufficient for that purpose. The degree of such alarm may vary in different cases, but the essential matter is that it is of a nature and extent to unsettle the mind of the person on whom it operates and take away from his acts that element of free voluntary action which alone constitutes consent. The case where the threat produces an alarm is comparatively a simple one, for CT No.463148/2016 Ram Shanker Gupta Vs. Babu Gupta Page No.16 of 21 all that has then to be proved is that threat was given and that the alarm was due to the threat; but where the threat has not that effect, it involves a question whether it was sufficient to overcome a man of ordinary nerves. The Court may hold it to be an empty boast, too insignificant to call for penal visitation of Section 506.
19. Now, reverting to the facts of present case, as per complaint, accused extended threat of throwing away his articles/ goods and disconnection of his electricity on 10.06.2006, thereafter again on 13.07.2006 and lastly on 04.09.2006, however complaint to the police was made on 11.06.2006, 25.06.2006 and 01.07.2006 vide Ex.CW1/6, Ex.CW 1/6 and Ex.CW1/8. None of these complaints refer to any particular incident of intimidation and level general allegations. I tis pertinent to note that complaint dated 01.07.2006 infact refers to not mere allegations of intimidation but also of a physical assault by accused. Strongly no such allegation of assault has been whispered anywhere in the present complaint.
20. Further, there are starke contradiction in the facts stated in complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C visavis the testimony of CW1 and his crossexamination. As per the complaint forming the genesis of the present case, incident dated 10.06.2006 complainant was intimidated by "accused no.2" following which complainant filed complaint with police on 11.06.2006. Complainant contradicted his version at the time of his testimony before the court as CW1 to state that on 10.06.2006, he was intimidated by "both accused no.1 and 2". He further improved his CT No.463148/2016 Ram Shanker Gupta Vs. Babu Gupta Page No.17 of 21 avernment to state that on 11.06.2006 his electricity and water was in fact disconnected. There is however no reference to the fact of actual disconnection of electricity or water on 11.06.2006 in complaint dated 11.06.2006 or subsequent complaints dated 25.06.2006 despite CW1 admitting in his cross examination dated 19.09.2007 that his electricity and water was disconnected at the time of making complaint dated 11.06.2006.
21. Further, for the first time, complainant alleged that the accused persons had also locked the rooftop under tenancy where his goods were lying. This avernment does not find any specific mention in the complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. except for vaguely alleging closure of roof top by putting lock in the stair case without stating as to who had put such lock. This avernment also does not specify any date or time of occurrence and as such is vague and ambiguous. He contradicted his own testimony by further stating that he "did not know" the name of the two persons who locked the roof top and it was his wife who told him that accused no.1 and 2 had went to the roof and locked it. Interestingly, complainant has not even examined his wife to corroborate such fact. There is no avernment in the complaint that any of the accused had threatened to deprive complainant of his access to the roof top. Also, as per Section 503 IPC, an act would be covered under the definition of criminal intimidation where accused caused the complainant to omit to do any act which such complainant was legally entitled to do. Burden of proof is firstly on complainant to show that his tenancy included roof rights to the property. Mere admission of tenancy to second floor of property would to imply CT No.463148/2016 Ram Shanker Gupta Vs. Babu Gupta Page No.18 of 21 tenancy right to the roof unless there is express contract to that effect.
22. Further, the deposition of CW1 fails to inspire the confidence of the court as the facts testified before the court for the first time do not even find a mention in the main complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. owe such undated fact is of complainant allegedly being manhandled by accused no.2 along with one Bhorilal Balmik and his wife. There is discrepancy in the allegation pertaining to incident dated 10.06.2006 where complainant states that he had requested for 'sometime' from accused to vacate the premises upon which he was intimidated this version deffer in his own complaint dated 11.06.2006 Ex.CW1/6 wherein he stated to have sought a time of one year. In his crossexamination dated 05.04.2008 he deposed that he had sought a time of six months for vacating the premises whereas in his crossexamination conducted on 22.04.2017, he again stated that he had sought one year time. Thus, none of the statements can be relied upon which further caste a doubt on the occurrence of any incident on 10.06.2006.
23. Further, as regards disconnection of electricity and water is concerned, CW1 has conceded that he had never seen the accused persons disconnecting electricity. He stated that accused had admitted having disconnected electricity before court of Ld. Rent Control Tribunal while there is no such admission contained in such order dated 19.02.2007. Even as CW1 stated that his electricity connection was told by his son to have been disconnected on 23.06.2006, complainant did not examine his son to corroborate this fact. Such non examination is CT No.463148/2016 Ram Shanker Gupta Vs. Babu Gupta Page No.19 of 21 detrimental to the case of complainant for the reason that he has alleged that on 23.06.2006, he did not return home and went to stay with his daughter till 03.07.2006. As such, his knowledge about alleged disconnection is merely hearsay.
24. In his crossexamination CW1 has claimed to have lived in the tenanted premises without electricity for 67 months. During this period he survived on battery operated fan and bulb which he was compelled to purchase due to such disconnected. It is matter of record that there is no proof of bill of any such purchase thus raising doubt as to the claim of complainant.
25. During crossexamination, Ld. Defence counsel has been successful in eliciting the fact that prior to the present tenancy, complainant had been in tenant landlord despite with his previous landlords namely Purshotam who was later examined as DW1. Though during cross examination of DW1, complainant questioned prior existence of any tenancy between him and Purshotam or any previous dispute, in his own crossexamination dated 19.09.2017, CW1 had admitted the factum of being tenant of father of Purshottam at one point of time and conceded dispute with Purshottam. Similarly, accused has been able to show existence of dispute between complainant and DW2 Mahavir Bansal and proved purchased of property in question by him. Testimony of DW3 is a denial of the allegation against him and nothing contradictory could be brought on record by complainant despite crossexamining DW3.
26. Hence, in the light of the above discussion, it is concluded that CT No.463148/2016 Ram Shanker Gupta Vs. Babu Gupta Page No.20 of 21 complainant has miserably failed to establish his case beyond reasonable doubt against accused persons. The apparent contradictions and discrepancies in his case have failed to inspire confidence of the court. Accordingly, accused Ram Babu Gupta and Pradeep Gupta are acquitted of offence under Section 506 Part I/34 IPC.
(CHARU GUPTA) CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE DISTRICT SOUTH, SAKET COURTS COMPLEX Announced in open Court.
today on 29.01.2021 CT No.463148/2016 Ram Shanker Gupta Vs. Babu Gupta Page No.21 of 21