Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Delhi District Court

Rameshwar Dayal & Ors vs . State & Ors. on 20 July, 2018

     In the court of Additional Session Judge­04,  District Shahdara,
 (Model/Pilot Project Court), Room No.51, Second Floor,  Karkardooma
                               Courts, Delhi 

Rameshwar Dayal & Ors  Vs. State & Ors.                        
CNR No. DLSH01­003660­2018        I.D. No. 133/18 
Criminal Revision No.23/18        date of institution     :  29.05.2018 
PS : Farsh Bazar                  decision reserved on: 18.07.2018
                                  date of decision        : 20.07.2018 

In the matter of   

1.Rameshwar Dayal Gaur s/o Sh. Ram Dutt
2.Ram Gopal s/o of Sh. Ram Dutt
both resident of B­84, Gali No.7, Kanti Nagar 
Extension, Delhi­110051
3.Dinesh Kumar Sharma s/o of Sh. Moti Ram
R/o C­115, Gali No.8, East Kanti Nagar, Delhi 
                                            ...Revisionists/Petitioners

                      Versus

1. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)
2. Raj Kumar Mittal s/o Sh. Hem Chand Mittal
r/o Near Neel Giri Public School, Gali No.4,
Rama Garden, Karawal Nagar, Delhi­110094
                                              ...Respondents

J U D G M E N T  [On revision petition arising from orders dated 23.02.2018 of court of Sh.   Prayank   Nayak,   Ld.   Metropolitan   Magistrate,   Shahdara, Karkardooma, Delhi (in brief trial court) in complaint case No. 8435/16 Rameshwar   Dayal   Gaur   &   Ors.     Vs.   Raj   Kumar   Mittal,   P.S.   Farsh Bazar]. 

1.1  (Background) - In order to decided the revision petition, it needs to introduce background in brief.

1.2 The respondent No.2 Raj Kumar Mittal filed a complaint u/s 200 Cr.P.C.,   CC   No.88/2006   in   respect   of   offence   u/ss   452/395/397   r/w 147/148/149 IPC & 506 IPC (Ex.CW3/A in the trial court record) against five   persons,   out   of   them   the   three   are   present   petitioners   (1   to   3 herein).   The   complaint   was   in   respect   of   incident   in   the   midnight   of 14/15.07.2006. Prior to filing of the complaint, the said respondent No.2 made   a   report   dated   17.07.2006   was   lodged   with   DCP   (North   East District) (Ex.CW6/A).

The   preliminary   evidence   was   recorded   in   the   complaint   CC No.88/2006   and   by   order   dated   22.03.2010   the   then   Metropolitan Magistrate,  Karkardooma,  Shahdara  dismissed the complaint  u/s 203 Cr.P.C.   Complaint   Raj   Kumar   Mittal   felt   aggrieved   by   order   dated 22.03.2010, he preferred a criminal revision petition before the court of Ld.   Session   Judge,   Karkardooma   Courts,   and   by   order   dated 13.07.2010   by   the   court   of   Additional   Sessions   Judge,   the   revision petition was allowed by setting aside order dated 2.03.2010 of court of Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate. The present petitioners (No.1 to 3) and two others assailed that order dated 13.07.2010 (of Ld. Additional Session Judge, Karkardooma, Delhi) before Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Crl. M.C.   No.632/2011   and   by   order   dated   11.12.2011   by   Hon'ble   High Court of Delhi, the order dated 13.07.2010 was set aside and the matter was remanded back to the trial court to hold further inquiry and pass appropriate orders in terms of section 203 or 204 Cr.P.C. 

1.3 It was 02.12.2010, an FIR No.501/2006 was pending under the title State Vs. Raj Kumar Mittal etc. and the petitioners (No. 1 and 3 (herein,   Rameshwar   Dayal   Gaur   and   Dinesh   Kumar   Sharma)   were present in the court when respondent No.2 detained or got detained the said   petitioners   (   No.1   and   3)   in   court   and   they   were   compelled   to arrange surety and apply for bail from the court immediately on that day.

2.1 (Introduction) - The status, image, reputation and honour of the petitioner have been lower down in the eyes of all the persons of the society as Raj Kumar Mittal had defamed these petitioners in the locality as well as in the eyes of inhabitants. Therefore, a legal notice dated 17.01.2013   (Ex.CW1/11)   was   sent   and   served   to   Raj   Kumar   Mittal seeking damages as well as to pay the same failing to do so there will be civil and criminal action.

2.2 Thence,   the   petitioners   filed   complaint   dated   17.05.2013   u/s 499/500   IPC   [non   cognizable   offence,   however,   an   application   u/s 156(3)   Cr.P.C   was   filed,   which   was   not   pressed   for]   against   the respondent No.2 Raj Kumar Mittal and the case was put to statement of complainant & witnesses.  Five witnesses (CW1 to CW5) were recorded and   by   order   dated   23.02.2018   the   complaint   was   dismissed   by   the court of Sh. Prayank Nayak, Ld. M.M.­02 (Shahdara) by giving detail of previous proceedings and holding that it cannot be said that there was false complaint against the petitioners/complainants and prima facie no offence of criminal defamation was found to be made out against the accused/Raj Kumar Mittal.

The   petitioners   are   feeling   aggrieved   by   that   order   dated 23.02.2018 and that is why the present revision petition has been filed. 

2.3 The petitioners are inquired, after receiving the TCR, about the material to be treated a defamation u/s 499 IPC to be punishable u/s 500 IPC vis­a­vis to proceed further in the matter and also whether to give notice to respondent No.2.

3. (Plea of petitioners) - Ld. Counsel Sh. Hari Shanker, Advocate has been to the record to highlight as to how false complaint was filed by the respondent  No.2/Raj Kumar Mittal  and the present  petitioners have to go for different rounds of litigation (firstly, it was before the court of Ld. Additional Session Judge and then before Hon'ble High Court of Delhi)   which   harassed   the   petitioners.   Moreover,   the   incident   of 02.12.2010 has also lowered the status, reputation, prestige and honour of petitioners since they were detained by the said Raj Kumar Mittal and the petitioners were to arrange their sureties to secure the bail forthwith, they were admitted on bail. The trial court has passed the impugned order   dated   23.02.2018   hurriedly   and   without   appreciating   the circumstances. A few queries were made, which were also responded by   Ld.   Counsel   for   complainant,   it   will   be   dealt   in   the   paragraph   of findings.

4. (Findings   with   reasons)   -   After   considering   the   record   and totality of circumstances, it does not require notice to respondent No.2 Raj Kumar Mittal and the revision petition is dismissed for the following reasons :­ C.R No. 23/18 Rameshwar Dayal Gaur & Ors. Vs State & Raj Kumar Mittal Page 4 of 6

(i) it was inquired whether there is any observation that it was a false complaint   CC   No.88/2006   by   respondent   No.2   in   any   of   the   orders (either by Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi in order dated 22.03.2010 or by Ld. Additional Sessions Court or by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi). The copy of order dated 22.03.2010 was produced (as it was not earlier made part of the record)  and it is submitted  that none of the orders speak of that the complaint was a false complaint,

(ii) it was also inquired that since notice dated 17.01.2013 was given to   respondent   No.2   prior   to   filing   of   the   complaint,   is   it   the circumstances of malicious prosecution or of defamation, Ld. Counsel responded that it is a situation of both, that is why the complaint was filed.   However,   the   complaint   No.88/2006   is   still   sub   judice   after direction by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, 

(iii)  it is apparent from the proceedings that complaint CC No.88/2006 was remanded back to the court of Metropolitan Magistrate to carrying the further inquiry, meaning thereby that complaint is pending,

(iv) so far  the  other  incident  of  02.12.2010  is concerned,  it  is  also apparent that it was subject matter of proceedings before the court that the petitioners No.1 and 3 were admitted on bail, as at that material time the appearance of the petitioners were pending (being subsequent to order  dated   13.10.2010  by the  then  court  of  Ld.  Additional  Sessions Judge, Delhi) and on the one side, the complaint CC No.88/2006 is still pending and simultaneously there is no findings by any of the courts that   the   complaint   (CC   No.88/2006)   was   false,   whether   it   could   be defamation is again in next course to be considered, otherwise there C.R No. 23/18 Rameshwar Dayal Gaur & Ors. Vs State & Raj Kumar Mittal Page 5 of 6 are also exceptions to section 499 IPC, particularly exception No.8 and 9,   as   the   respondent   No.2   in   his   complaint   put   his   grievances   or allegations before the court of law.

6. Accordingly, the revision petition is disposed off and it will not be construed any observations with regard to the complainant No.88/2006, which   is   still   pending   inquiry   vis­a­vis   it   was   not   the   subject   matter before this court. This revision is dismissed and  disposed off. Copy of this judgment alongwith TCR be sent back forthwith. 

Announced in open court today शश कववर, आषवढ 29, सवकव 1940 (Inder Jeet Singh)   Additional Session Judge­04             (Shahdara), KKD Courts, Delhi                         20.07.2018 Digitally signed by INDERJEET SINGH INDERJEET Location:

                                                   SINGH                     Karkardooma
                                                                             Courts
                                                                             Date: 2018.07.20
                                                                             16:36:15 +0530




C.R No. 23/18      Rameshwar Dayal Gaur & Ors. Vs State & Raj Kumar Mittal        Page 6 of 6