Delhi District Court
The Present Complaint Has Been Filed By ... vs Unknown on 20 April, 2015
IN THE COURT OF SHRI DEEPAK WASON
ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITIAN MAGISTRATE
(SOUTH-WEST) DWARKA COURTS: NEW DELHI
CC No. 313/13
PS Dwarka Sec. 23
Sheetal Makol
R/o Flat No. 686, Pocket-2,
Sector-19, Dwarka,
New Delhi.
.... Complainant
Versus
1. Joginder (Constable)
Delhi Police
PS Amar Colony
New Delhi-110024
2. Harish Makol
S/o Sh. Ramesh Chander
B-172, Dayanand Colony
1st Floor, Lajpat Nagar
New Delhi-110024
.... Accused (s)
20/04/2015
ORDER
1. The present complaint has been filed by the complainant Under Section 156(3) code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter called Cr. P. C.) against the accused persons for the offence punishable Under Section 506/34 Indian Penal Code (herein after called IPC). It is a matter of record that vide order dated 02/07/2014, application of the complainant u/s 156(3) Cr. P. C. was treated as a complaint u/s 200 Cr. P. C.
2. It is the case of the complainant that on 26.01.2013 at about 9:16 PM, the accused No. 1 called from mobile No. 9811140667 to the number of the father of the complainant, i.e., 9312403276 of Aircel and asked for talk with the complainant. It is further stated in the complaint that during the talk, the call was disconnected and the complainant dialed from mobile No. 9899771766 to the above mentioned mobile No. 9811140667 and ask him as to on whose behalf the accused No. 1 was talking. It is further stated in the complaint that the accused No. 1 disclosed the name of accused No. 2 Harish Mokol and threatened the complainant on the instance of the accused No. 2 Harish Mokol and told that he was duty bound to secure the interest of the accused No. 2 and threatened that either the complainant withdraw her complainant otherwise he would put the complainant behind the bar of PS Amar Colony. It is further stated in the complaint that the complainant made written complaint on 27/01/2013 at about 12 AM vide DD No. 40 B to the SHO Police Station Dwarka Sec. 23 and the contents of the same may kindly be read as part and parcel. It is further stated in the complaint that despite written complaint dated 27/01/2013 disclosing cognizable and serious offence; the police official of the Police Station Dwarka Sec. 23 has not taken any action against accused persons till date. Hence, the present complaint.
3. To support her case, the complainant has examined herself as CW-1.
4. CW-1 is Mrs. Sheetal Makol. She has deposed that she got married with Sh. Vinit Makol on 10/12/2009 in Sanatan Dharm Mandir, Nanak Pura and she filed a complaint in CAW Cell in which Vinit Makol (husband), Bharat Bhushan Makol (father in law), Usha Makol (mother in law), Harish Makol (Chacha Sasur), Anuradha Makol (Chachi Saas) and Praveen Bhasin (fufa sasur), Bharti Bhasin (bua saas) and FIR no. 106/11 was registered against all the aforesaid persons on 05/08/2011. She has further deposed that her husband is a Canadian Citizen and is a green card holder of USA and her father in law and mother in law are citizens of Canada as they left India to Canada in 1992. She has further deposed that her matrimonial home is at B-172, ground Floor, Lajpat Nagar IV in which she went after marriage on 10/12/2009. She has further deposed that at the time of her marriage, the abovesaid house at Lajpat Nagar was in the name of her father in law. She has further deposed that on 30/01/2010, she went to her mother's house at Dwarka on the death of her grand mother for 02-03 days and after 30/01/2010 she was not allowed to enter in her matrimonial home at Latpat Nagar by Harish Makol and Anuradha Makol. She has further deposed that she was told by CAW Cell that PS Sector - 23 will help her in returning her articles (stridhan) from her in laws at ground floor, Lajpat Nagar. She has further deposed that her father in law and mother in law left India to Canada in the first week of February 2010 without any information to her. She has further deposed that the key of Ground Floor at Lajpat Nagar always lies with Harish Makol. She has further deposed that after registration of FIR in Sector 23 PS, nobody helped her in returning her stridhan from her in laws. She has further deposed that IO did not obtain any search warrant from Hon'ble court till 13/01/2013. She has further deposed that she filed RTI in Sector 23 PS and regarding obtaining of her stridhan and they replied that there is no need of court order regarding search warrant for stridhan as they stated that applicant can visit the address alongwith IO. She has further deposed that she called IO Ram Pratap telephonically several times and requested him to help me in returning her stridhan from her in laws. She has further deposed that despite of the fact of having knowledge that the aforesaid house belongs to her father in law, IO did not help her in searching her articles from the said address. She has further deposed that she had requested IO Ram Pratap to send a letter to Mehrauli Authority Office not to sell the said address as her stridhan was lying there. She has further deposed that IO also sent a reply to her regarding the above and on 13/01/2013, she visited the house alongwith IO Ram Pratap and other police official, Harish Makol came down from the first floor and mis
- behaved with her by telling that he was the owner of the above said house at Lajpat Nagar. She has further deposed that she had requested Harish Makol to show the papers of the house but Harish Makol pushed her back and nobody from police side helped her for that and started laughing at her as bystanders. She has further deposed that her mother in law, father in law and husband had declared PO from the court of Ms. Tyagita Singh, Ld. MM on 04/02/2014 and 28/03/2014 respectively and Harish Makol was having knowledge regarding PO proceedings of husband and in laws and then Harish Makol had started nuisance by shouting "tu mere bhai or bhatije ko yahan bulayegi" and since he mishebaved with her, she shouted and cried a lot. She has further deposed that then they came back as Harish Makol did not help her in entering his premises. She has further deposed that on 21/02/2013, she filed an application in the court of Ms. Tyagita Singh, Ld.MM that accused and police were acting in connivance and also police was not taking appropriate steps, so she requested to change the IO and thereafter, her IO was changed by Ld. MM. She has further deposed that on 26/01/2013, her father received a phone call from HC Joginder, PS Amar Colony at 9.15 PM and asked her to call Sheetal and in the meantime, the phone got disconnected and thereafter, she herself called back to HC Joginder. She has further deposed that HC Joginder threatened her on telephone and told that "tu Harish Makol ko janti hai aur Harish Makol ki suraksha karna uska farz hain aur tu ek battmij ladki hai, FIR wapis le nai to tuje PS Amar Colony me band karke tuje batata hu or tere saath aish karta hu aur maine bola ke FIR muj pe nai hui hai, FIR Harish Makol pe hui hai". She has further deposed that on 10/05/2013, Harish Makol handed over the papers of property of Lajpat Nagar to IO Ram Pratap and after showing the papers, it came to notice that on 20/07/2011, Harish Makol became the owner of the property just to save his brother from the proceedings u/s 83 Cr.P.C. She has further deposed that the search was conducted at first Floor & Second Floor on 01/05/2013 after the court orders and that too after filing the application dated 21/02/2013 and the search of ground floor and top floor was stopped by the SHO and IO Ram Pratap. She has further deposed that on 13.01.2013, she never misbehaved with any of the residents of Lajpat Nagar and all the residents were standing on the 2nd Floor and they were saying "or jor se cheekh, or jor se chillao". She has further deposed that status report filed by the police is false in nature. She has further deposed that Harish Makol had also given a false complaint on 13.01.2013 at PS Amar Colony, the reason given in the abovesaid complaint was also false and all the complaints given by Harish Makol are false. She has further deposed that she also want that legal action be taken on the false status report given by SI Ram Partap and SHO Ram Kishan.
5. It is matter of record that after examining CW1, the complainant had closed her pre-summoning evidence and the matter was fixed for hearing arguments on the point of summoning of proposed accused persons.
6. I have heard the arguments advanced by the complainant as she has argued the matter herself. I have also gone through the entire record.
7. The present case is filed for the offence punishable u/s 506/34 IPC against proposed accused persons and the ingredients of above said Section are required to be satisfied before summoning the proposed accused persons.
8. At the stage of summoning, the court has to see whether any prima facie case is made out against the proposed accused persons or not. I have gone through the entire testimony of the complainant. Complainant has made various allegations in her deposition with the regard to the investigation conducted by the police officials as one FIR No. 106/11 was registered. Perusal of testimony of complainant shows that in her entire testimony, she has deposed about the details with regard to investigation of FIR No. 106/11. She has deposed that Harish Mokol has misbehaved with her. She has further deposed that Harish Mokol had started nuisance by shouting with her. Besides it, she has no where deposed that what offence has been committed by Harish Mokol. By misbehaving by some person or by shouting, it cannot be said that a person has committed any offence. Hence, after going through the deposition made by the complainant, I am of the view that there is nothing on record to suggest that any offence has been committed by proposed accused Harish Mokol. Hence, proposed accused Harish Mokol cannot be summoned for any offence.
9. As far as other accused Joginder is concerned, complainant has deposed that HC Joginder has threatened her on telephone. Complainant has not proved on record that particular telephone number as mentioned in the complaint (however, not mentioned in evidence) belongs to Joginder. Complainant has also not filed/proved any call details. It is doubtful that proposed accused Joginder has talked on telephone with the complainant. Even otherwise, she has only made a bald and vague allegations, which is not sufficient to summon proposed accused Joginder for the offence U/s. 506 IPC. It is also to be born in mind that summoning of accused persons or issuing process to accused persons should not be reduced to mundane or cursory formality. Hence, there is also nothing on record to summon proposed accused Joginder for the offence U/s. 506 IPC.
10. Hence, after going through the entire record and material available on record, I am of the view that no case U/s. 506/34 IPC is made out against the proposed accused persons. No other offence is also made out and proposed accused persons cannot be summoned for any offence. Hence, complaint is dismissed.
11. File be consigned to Record Room, after due compliance.
(Deepak Wason) ACMM (SW):Dwarka Courts New Delhi:20/04/2015