Delhi District Court
Anurag Verma vs . M.C. Upreti on 5 April, 2019
IN THE COURT OF SH. KISHOR KUMAR, MM-03, SOUTH WEST DISTRICT, ROOM NO.11, DWARKA COURTS, DELHI. C.C. No. : 4989904/2016 U/s : U/s 500 IPC 268 r/w 290 IPC & 211 part (1) IPC P.S. : Bindapur Anurag Verma Vs. M.C. Upreti JUDGMENT:
a) Sl. No. of the Case : 378/7, New No. 4989904/2016
b) Name & address of the : Anurag Verma S/o Shri Alok complainant. Kumar R/o D-806, DDA flats, Bindapur, New Delhi.
c) Name & address of : MC Upreti S/o Shri B.R.Upreti, R/o accused D-813, DDA Flats, Bindapur, New Delhi.
d) Date of Commission of : 04.03.2015 offence
e) Offence complained off : U/s 500 IPC 268 r/w 290 IPC & 211 part (1) IPC
f) Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty.
g) Final Order : acquitted u/s 268 r/w 290 IPC & 211(1) IPC;
Convicted u/s 500 IPC
h) Date of such order : 05.04.2019
Date of Institution : 04.09.2015
Final arguments heard on : 24.11.2018
Judgment Pronounced on : 05.04.2019
CC NO. 4989904/2016 Anurag Verma V. M.C.Upreti Page No.1
BRIEF STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR DECISION: -
1. Complainant has filed the present complaint against the accused contending inter alia on the grounds that on 4.3.2015 the accused with the intention to cause injury to the complainant sent an email on the official email address of the company of the complainant alleging that the complainant is a terrorist, though accused knew that there was no just or lawful ground for the same. The said defamatory emails came to the knowledge of the colleagues of the complainant; that accused encroached the DDA land/common space in front of his house and the house of the complainant causing nuisance.
2. The complainant led presummoning evidence examining himself as CW-4. He also examined CW-1 Smt. Renu, CW-2 Shri Anish Sharma, CW-3 Ms. Mansi Mehra, CW-5 Shri R.S.Meena, Engineer MCD west Zone.
3. The complainant in presummoning evidence reiterated his complaint and the other complainant witnesses corroborated him.CC NO. 4989904/2016 Anurag Verma V. M.C.Upreti Page No.2
4. On the basis of pre summoning evidence, the accused was summoned for the offence punishable under Section 500/211/268 IPC .
5 Accused appeared, was admitted to bail. Since the accused was summoned for the summon trial offences, a notice was served upon him on dated 7.11.2017 for the offence punishable under Section 500/268 read with 290/211 part I IPC to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
6. In after notice evidence, the complainant has examined himself as CW-1 and there he deposed in his examination in chief that about five years ago, he purchased H. NO. D-806, DDA Flats, Bindapur. There was common space to be used for parking and for other common purposes. The said common space has been captured by accused and his family members. He requested the accused to remove his boundary. But accused refused to do so and instead told that whatever he can do, he can do. Thereupon, he approached RWA.
RWA however, did not help out as accused has good connection with them as also RWA told that they do not have any legal rights to remove the encroachment made CC NO. 4989904/2016 Anurag Verma V. M.C.Upreti Page No.3 by the accused on the common space. Thereafter, he made complaint to the police against the accused. The encroachment made by the accused also caused hindrance in his passage to the flat. However, police also did not help him as it was not their job to remove the encroachment. Thereafter, he approached DDA. However, they told him that since they had already transferred the area to MCD they cannot do anything and that he should approach MCD. Thereafter, the complainant approached MCD. MCD officials demolished the encroachments made by the accused thrice. Because of all theses, the accused and his family members always used to quarrel and abused him openly. The accused has sown a tree in the passage with a view to obstruct way to approach the complainant's flat. Because of all these, the accused wrote a mail to his office stating that complainant is a terrorist, his mother is of upset mind and that he uses the office customers for his personal use at his home. The said mail has been accessed by various persons in his office. After few days, the accused and his family members had beaten up his mother for which separate case has been lodged against accused and his family members. He was also beaten up by the accused. He was apprised by his office that some defamatory emails have been received by the accused and he was asked to explain the same. He CC NO. 4989904/2016 Anurag Verma V. M.C.Upreti Page No.4 explained his office that since he has certain issues with the accused with malafide intention, accused made email to the office to malign him. Because of the email sent by accused, his future aspects in the company were adversely affected and his US trip was also got cancelled by the office.
7. The complainant relied on the documents exhibited during his pre summoning evidence as it is. He also relied on the earlier evidence led on record for all purposes.
8. Because of the misconduct of the accused, marriage of complainant was also cancelled. He was working in the aforesaid company for last almost 12 years. His image in the eyes of his colleagues and friends has been lowered down by the conduct of the accused. He also suffered a lot professionally.
9. CW-1/complainant was cross -examined by Ld. counsel for the accused where he deposed that he shifted to the present house in November, 2012. Accused has been residing in the said locality for last about 20 years. The complainant filed on record a self drawn map of his flat which was taken on record and marked as mark A. The CC NO. 4989904/2016 Anurag Verma V. M.C.Upreti Page No.5 flat of accused is two flats away from the house of the complainant at point Y and that of the complainant at point Z. The disputed area belonged to MCD. The complainant made about ten complaints to MCD but no action was taken. Ld. Counsel for accused showed photocopy of an order passed by SCM and report of the IO dated 19.10.2016. The certified copies of these documents are Ex.X1 and X2. Complainant has admitted that a quarrel had taken place between him and accused in October 2012 on the eve of Diwali. Complainant have a pet (dog). The complainant has denied the suggestion that society people had made any complaint against maintaining the dog. The complainant was put many photocopies of various complaints made by the accused as well as his family members including daughter in law of accused and his wife. Photocopies of such complaints are mark X3 collectively. The complainant was further put with the photocopy of his statement dated 17.12.2013 which complainant admitted and the same is Ex.X4. However, the complainant volunteered that he gave this statement to the accused under compulsion. The complainant has denied the suggestion that on 8.5.2013 he removed the plants erected on the common place and also a fired the same. The complainant also admitted that a meeting was convened by RWA to resolve the CC NO. 4989904/2016 Anurag Verma V. M.C.Upreti Page No.6 misbehaviour of the complainant, conduct of his mother and the discharge of shit by the dog of the complainant in front of the flat of the accused. It is correct that accused made complaint dated 24.9.2014 against the complainant same day when the meeting was convened. The complainant has denied the suggestion that on dated 2.3.2015, he, his mother and relatives blocked the sewage system of the house of the accused.
10. The complainant further deposed that he knew that accused emailed against him on 4.3.2015. He came to know about the email on 16.3.2015. He denied the suggestion that accused was compelled to make the subject email under compulsion. He further denied the suggestion that the complainant along with his friends and relatives used to harass/intimidate and torture the accused and his family members at odd hours in the mid night. CW-1 has further admitted that on a particular day, a quarrel had taken place between him and the accused and complaint was made to the police station and cross FIRs were registered regarding the said incident. The FIR against the complainant was under Section 354 IPC. The complainant has denied the suggest that to disturb the satsang organized by the accused on 9.10.2015, the complainant made various complaints to the police to CC NO. 4989904/2016 Anurag Verma V. M.C.Upreti Page No.7 disturb him. However, the complainant had volunteered that the loudspeaker was being used beyond the permissible limits and for this reason he called the police. In his further cross examination, the complainant has further admitted that his marriage was broken due to email of the accused. Ld. Counsel for the accused further put the suggestion which had been denied by the complainant that the accused was very much compelled to send the above email in very miserable condition and situation. Complainant at one place has admitted that the contents of email are true and correct.
11. The rest of the cross examination of CW- 1/complainant is in suggestion - denial form.
12. After closure of complainant evidence, the accused has been examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and he was put all the incriminatory evidence against him. The accused has denied the case of the complainant. He further explained that the present complaint has been filed by the complainant as a counter blast to the FIR got lodged against him under Section 354 IPC. The accused has been residing in his flat for the last about 20 years and has been using the common space for plantation.
CC NO. 4989904/2016 Anurag Verma V. M.C.Upreti Page No.813. Accused examined himself as DW-1 under Section 315 Cr.P.C. where he deposed in examination in chief that the disputes between the complainant and him is the common space of DDA, in front of his house, complainant and two other occupants. He was residing there since 2004. However, the complainant came there in 2012. In between, he planted some trees and plants in the common area boundary. The complainant has occupied the same space for his car parking. However, the complainant was blaming him that he had occupied the common area i.e. the only dispute between them. For that time and again complainant is threatening him that complainant will implicate him in false and frivolous criminal cases whereas, there is an FIR lodged against him on 12.03.2015 vide FIR No. 370/15 u/s 354/323/506/509/34 IPC. The present complaint filed by the complainant is false and concocted as there is sufficient evidence against him for charges. Certified copy of civil case No. 981/17 is Ex. DW1/A, coloured marriage photograph of the complainant is Ex. DW1/B and site plan of disputed area is Ex. DW1/C. All the allegations mentioned in the complaint are false and frivolous.
14. DW-1/accused has been cross examined by Ld. Counsel for the complainant and there he deposed that he CC NO. 4989904/2016 Anurag Verma V. M.C.Upreti Page No.9 had been residing in the locality well before the complainant started residing there. Since very day, accused started residing, he had been planting plants and trees in the common area. He has admitted that common space area is to be used by the concerned dwellers of the stated area. He has admitted that he has not taken permission from the concerned legal authority to use the common space. It is correct that complainant had made dispute concerning the common space area and for which he had made various complaints. On the complaints of the complainant the MCD officials had come various times to remove the illegal fencing etc. It is correct that the accused got lodged FIR against the complainant with regard to the common space. The accused has denied of having made any defamatory mail to the company of the complainant where he used to work however the email ID mentioned on the relevant email is of the accused. The accused did not make any police complaint when he came to know that the alleged email has been sent from his email ID.
15. DW-2 Smt. Parvati Upreti is the wife of the accused and she has deposed in her examination in chief that the dispute between the complainant and her husband is of common space of DDA, in front of their house, CC NO. 4989904/2016 Anurag Verma V. M.C.Upreti Page No.10 complainant and two other occupants. They are residing there since 2004. However, the complainant came there in 2012. In between, his husband planted some trees and plants in the common area boundary. The complainant has occupied the same space for his car parking. However, he is blaming them that they have occupied the common area i.e. the only dispute between them. For that, time and again he is threatening them that he will implicate them in false and frivolous criminal cases whereas, there is an FIR lodged against him on 12.03.2015 vide FIR No. 370/15 u/s 354/323/506/509/34 IPC. The present complaint filed by the complainant is false and concocted as there is sufficient evidence against him for charges. All the allegations mentioned in the complaint are false and frivolous. The complainant used to threat her in absence of her husband. The complainant always used to extend threats to her and her daughter to implicate her husband in false and frivolous cases as he is computer engineer.
16. DW-3 Smt. Manjula Upreti is the daughter of the accused and she has deposed in her examination in chief that the dispute between the complainant and her father in law is that of common space of DDA, in front of their house, complainant and two other occupants. They are CC NO. 4989904/2016 Anurag Verma V. M.C.Upreti Page No.11 residing there since 2005. However, the complainant came there in 2012. In between, his father in law planted some trees and plants in the common area boundary. The complainant has occupied the same space for his car parking. However, he is blaming them that they have occupied the common area i.e. the only dispute between them. For that, time and again he is threatening them that he will implicate them in false and frivolous criminal cases. She had lodged an FIR against him on 12.03.2015 vide FIR No. 370/15 u/s 354/323/506/509/34 IPC. FIR is self explanatory. The present complaint filed by the complainant is false and concocted as there is sufficient evidence against him for charges. All the allegations mentioned in the complaint are false and frivolous. The complainant always used to extend threats to her and her in laws to implicate her and her in laws in false and frivolous cases as he is a computer engineer. The complainant has evil eyes on her when she was alone.
17. I have heard Ld. Counsel for the complainant, Ld. Counsel for accused and have carefully gone through the record.
18. It is an admitted proposition of facts that both the parties are involved in making the complaints against CC NO. 4989904/2016 Anurag Verma V. M.C.Upreti Page No.12 each other on the point of use of common space which is available in front of the flats of the parties. As a matter of record, the complainant examined himself as CW-1 in after notice evidence, whereas he had examined five witnesses in the pre summoning evidence. Ld. Counsel for the complainant could not give any plausible reason for non examination of the witnesses which were examined by the complainant in pre summoning evidence and who have supported him at that time. Be that as it may, now the court is to appreciate the evidence which has come in after notice stage.
19. In his cross examination CW-1/complainant has admitted that there used to be quarrels/differences between him and the accused on account of use of common space as also on account of the dog, maintained by the complainant. In corroboration and in support of his version, the complainant has not examined any independent witness to strengthen his case. Instead the complainant has been put with various documents in his cross examination like documents Ex.X1 and X2, the complaints mark X3 collectively and the statement of the complainant himself Ex. X4. The nature and facts of the case required independent and corroborative evidence in addition to the testimonies of the complainant in which CC NO. 4989904/2016 Anurag Verma V. M.C.Upreti Page No.13 the complainant miserably failed. The present complaint is result of long drawn complaints/litigations between the complainant and the accused and thus the present case is found to be motivated one. The result of the dispute between the parties has come to the extent that even FIRs have been registered against both the parties.
20. The accused has been charged for the offence punishable under Section 500 IPC that he emailed defamatory mail to the company of the complainant. The defamatory email is exhibited as Ex.CW1/1. The accused has referred the complainant in Ex.CW1/1 that "complainant has links with some local terrorist groups". In the cross examination of CW-1 twice suggestions have been given to CW-1/complainant by Ld. Counsel for the accused "it is wrong to suggest that accused was compelled to make the subject email under compulsion".
"It is wrong to suggest that the accused was very much compelled to send the above mail in very miserable condition and situation"
21. By way of the above two suggestions the accused has admitted that he sent the defamatory mail Ex.CW1/1 to the company of the complainant. The CC NO. 4989904/2016 Anurag Verma V. M.C.Upreti Page No.14 conduct of the accused in sending the questioned email Ex.CW1/1 does not fall in any of the ten exceptions appended to Section 499 IPC.
22. In view of the discussion herein above, it is held that complainant having failed to examine any independent witness in support of his case, he has failed to prove the charges for the offence punishable under Section 268 read with 290 and 211 (1) IPC but the complainant has been able to prove its case for the offence punishable under Section 500 IPC in view of the defamatory contents contained in email Ex.CW1/1. Thus, the accused is hereby acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 268 read with 290 IPC and 211 (1) IPC. However, he is held guilty for the offence punishable under Section 500 IPC.
Digitally
signed by
KISHOR
KISHOR KUMAR
KUMAR Date:
2019.04.08
15:36:23
+0530
Dictated & Announced in Open Court (Kishor Kumar)
On the 5th April , 2019 MM-03/South-West/Delhi
05.04.2019
CC NO. 4989904/2016 Anurag Verma V. M.C.Upreti Page No.15