Delhi District Court
Dr. J. R. Jain vs (1) State on 10 July, 2013
IN THE COURT OF SHRI YASHWANT KUMAR, ADDL.
SESSIONS JUDGE, N/W, ROHINI, DELHI
Criminal Revision No. 30/13
Dr. J. R. Jain
s/o late Sh. Paras Ram Jain,
r/o AC42A, Ashok Vihar,
PhaseI, Delhi 52 ....Revisionist/petitioner
Versus
(1) State, through Delhi Administration, Delhi
(2) Sh. Parveen Kumar Agarwal,
s/o Salig Ram Agarwal
r/o 540/23, Gali Dhakkanwali, Gur Mandi,
Sonepat, Haryana
(3) Sh. Sandeep Singhal
s/o Pale Ram
r/o Rohtak Road, Gur Mandi,
Sonepat, Haryana
& other unknown persons ... Respondents
ORDER
1. The revisionist has filed this revision petition against the impugned order dated 23.02.2012 passed by Sh. Bhupinder Singh, Ld. MM01, Rohini Courts, Delhi whereby the Ld. MM, Crl. Rev. No. 30/13; Dr. J.R. Jain Vs. State & Ors. Page 1 of 7 Rohini Courts, Delhi dismissed the complaint case of the complainant/revisionist u/s 200 Cr.P.C. on the point of summoning the respondent for trial u/s 327/394/468/506/34 IPC in CC no. 2834/1/08 titled as "Dr. J.R. Jain Vs. Praveen Kumar Aggarwal".
2. TCR has already been summoned. Despite opportunities given, the Ld. Counsel for the revisionist has not appeared for arguments. However, I have heard the Ld. APP for the State/ respondent No. 1 and have also perused the materials on record.
3. The revisionist has taken the grounds among others in the revision petition that the impugned order dt. 23.02.2012 is based on surmises and conjectures and based on assumptions and presumptions as the Ld. Court has observed that statement of the complainant do not inspire confidence in as much as complaint was filed on 10.09.2008 and the incident is dated 03.06.2008. Further, despite the best efforts of the doctor complainant, the police was not inclined to register FIR because of which the present complaint and application u/s 156(3) CrPC was moved. The Ld. Magistrate has failed to appreciate that Exhibit CW/16 recorded on 18.04.2008 is antedated document filed by the accused persons against the son of the complainant with whom Crl. Rev. No. 30/13; Dr. J.R. Jain Vs. State & Ors. Page 2 of 7 they were not having any contract of any nature. Whereas the complaint of the complainant exhibit CW1/4 is dated 15.04.2008. Ld. Trial Court has further failed to appreciate that the accused persons who are having connections with police, local goons and who dare to enter and barged in the house of complainant during daytime have prima facie committed an act of dacoity extortion for which they were liable to be summoned u/s 394/468/506/327 read with Section 34 ICP. The Ld. Trial Court has further failed to appreciate the clear title of the complainant over the said property as per Ex. CW1/3 and has believed the version of police officials who have not only filed closure report in another complaint of the complainant against Jaswant Arora but has also declined to register FIR in the instant case. Ld. Trial Court also failed to appreciate that the statement made by the complainant on Court directions to the IO in case of Jaswant Arora was recorded by the IO in which complainant has deposed about the present complaint in which all the Annexures B to J find mention in the said statement so recorded by the police u/s 161 CrPC.
4. The revisionist has further taken the ground that the Ld. Trial Court has failed to appreciate that the said statement has been placed in Jaswant Arora's file and has not been placed in the Crl. Rev. No. 30/13; Dr. J.R. Jain Vs. State & Ors. Page 3 of 7 instant case file and prima facie offences as spelt out have been made against the accused persons. The Ld. Trial Court has failed to appreciate that fearing for his life and bodily injury of his family members and not allowed to access to the telephone the petitioner was not able to call No. 100 but has lodged a complaint immediately after extortion of the cheque and taking cash on 15.04.2008. Had it not so, there was no occasion to make a statement in the police station by accused persons on 18.04.2008 as per Ex.PW1/6. Further ground is taken that the Ld. Trial Court has failed to appreciate that complainant was robbed of Rs. 1.5 lacs at gun point and the complainant has not informed the banker regarding stop payment, hence, there is no truth in the complaint so made, whereas Ld. MM has failed to appreciate the terror traum which complainant and his family have undergone for inaction on the part of police. The Ld. Trial Court has failed to appreciate that every time dialing of 100 number is not possible and conclusion so arrived by the Ld. Trial Court is based on assumptions of his own whims and fancies. Ld. Trial Court has arrived at a wrong conclusion that the present complaint is malafide to pressurize the accused persons who are having a civil dispute in regard to property No. 888/24, Mission Road, Sonepat and Ld. Trial Court Crl. Rev. No. 30/13; Dr. J.R. Jain Vs. State & Ors. Page 4 of 7 has failed to appreciate the said contention that present complaint is for extortion, theft, threats and bodily injury in which accused persons have removed and taken not only the cash but also has forced the complainant to sign the cheque which in no way can be linked with property dispute at Sonepat. Further, the order did not fulfill the test and Hon'ble Court was only to see whether prima facie case was made out or not.
5. The Ld. MM in his order dated 23022012 considered and found that the contentions of the complainant did not inspire confidence since he improved upon what he had stated in his complaint. The complaint was filed on 10092008 and the incident was dated 03062008 whereupon as per the allegations of the complainant, he was robbed of Rs. 1.5 lacs at gun point, however, it was not mentioned. Further, the complainant stated that he was extorted of Rs. 2 lacs which was not possible since the complainant had all the opportunity to get the same stopped from being honoured by the concerned bank but no such action was taken by him. It was also the allegation of taking out Rs. 2.9 lacs from his almirah after breaking it open and the complainant was beaten but neither such photographs which could suggest that almirah had been broken nor any MLC of the complainant had Crl. Rev. No. 30/13; Dr. J.R. Jain Vs. State & Ors. Page 5 of 7 been placed on record which could corroborate the allegations levelled and further, the source of Rs. 2.9 lacs was not mentioned in the complaint. The Ld. MM further considered that the foremost thing which a person placed in such circumstance can do that he can dial 100 number, call the PCR and not straightaway file a written complaint to the PS but no such attempt was made either by the complainant or his family members. The Ld. MM also considered that it is highly amusing that no independent person witnessed the incident despite the fact that the alleged incident is stated to have been occurred in broad daylight amidst many flats. Therefore, the Ld. MM did not find the allegations levelled by the complainant against the respondents having any merits but seemed to have been motivated to pressurize the respondents with whom admittedly the complainant was having civil disputes regarding property no. 888/24 Mission Road, Sonepat, Haryana. The Ld. MM considering the statements of CWs examined on oath and after perusal of the complaint along with the annexed documents opined that there are no sufficient grounds for proceedings against the respondents, therefore, the complaint was dismissed u/s 203 Cr.P.C.
6. In view of the above facts and circumstances, I am of Crl. Rev. No. 30/13; Dr. J.R. Jain Vs. State & Ors. Page 6 of 7 the considered opinion that there was a civil dispute between the complainant and the respondents regarding the property bearing no. 888/24, Mission Road, Sonepat, Haryana. The revisionist/ complainant and his family members had every right and opportunity to either call at 100 number or to file the complaint before the PS concerned immediately. Further, the revisionist/ complainant did not take any step to file the photographs of the broken almirah and the record/ documents/ source of the amount robbed. Even the complainant did not take any step for stopping of the payment of cheque as extorted. I am in agreement with the view taken by the Ld. MM and find that the revision petition is devoid of merits and the same is dismissed. Copy of this order along with TCR be sent back to Ld. Trial Court and thereafter revision file be consigned to Record Room.
(YASHWANT KUMAR) ASJ/NW03/ROHINI/DELHI ANNOUNCED IN OPEN COURT on 10072013 Crl. Rev. No. 30/13; Dr. J.R. Jain Vs. State & Ors. Page 7 of 7