Delhi District Court
State vs . Pradeep Kumar Rana & Others on 6 May, 2014
State vs. Pradeep Kumar Rana & Others
IN THE COURT OF SH. PAWAN KUMAR JAIN
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-01 ( CENTRAL): DELHI
SC No. 27 of 2013
ID No. : 02401R0448722012
FIR No. : 81/2012
Police Station : Ranjeet Nagar
Under Section : 306/384/120B IPC
State
Versus
1. Pradeep Kumar Rana
S/o Sh. Rajbir Singh
2. Dharambir Singh Rana
S/o Mann Singh
3. Veerwati
W/o Rajbir Singh
.........Accused persons
Present: Sh. R.K. Tanwar, Additional Public Prosecutor for the
State.
Sh. Amit Sharma, Advocate, counsel for accused no.1
Sh. S. K. Kaushik, Advocate, counsel for accused no.2
Sh. R. S. Lathwal, Advocate, counsel for accused no. 3
Sh. C. Prakash, Advocate, counsel for complainant
SC No. 27/13 page 1 of 25
State vs. Pradeep Kumar Rana & Others
ORDER:-
1. By this order, I shall dispose of the contentions raised by counsel appearing for the accused persons that prima-facie no case is made out against the accused persons for the offence punishable under Section 306/384/120B IPC.
2. Briefly stated facts of prosecution case are that on May 18, 2010 at about 7.08 AM, an intimation was received at police control room that friend of caller had committed suicide by hanging at H. No. 3072, R-17, Gali No. 10, Ranjeet Nagar, Delhi.
(i) Said information was recorded vide DD No. 7A and assigned to SI Vijay Kumar. Accordingly, he reached the place of occurrence where it was revealed that deceased Gurdev Singh had committed suicide by hanging with ceiling fan. One suicide note was also found; same reads as under:-
मै गुरु दे व िसिं ह आत्महत्या कर रहा हू ँ क्योंकिक एक आदमी िजिसिका नाम प्रदीप राणा है वह मुझे तं ग कर रहा है । मुझे भी , मे रे चाचा को भी तं ग कर रहा। उसिने झूठे के सि डाल रहा है । हमारा और मे रे चाचा का मकान िजिसिमे हम 1960 सिे रह रहे है प्रदीप राणा उसिे हरपनना चाहता है । प्रदीप राणा ने सिभी मोहल्ले वालोंक को भी तं ग कर रखा है । वो कहता है िक खसिरा नं . जिो िक इतने सिालोंक सिे 49 मे है अब वो कहता है िक 44 है । उसिने सिभी पे प र झूठे बना िलए है । मे रे सिाथ हमारे मािलक Dr. B.K. Aggarwal सिे request है । डॉ . उन्होंकने वकील िदया है । उसिसिे request कर हमारा के सि डलवा दे । मे रे दोस्त है । िजितने भी वह मे रे पापा की help SC No. 27/13 page 2 of 25 State vs. Pradeep Kumar Rana & Others कर दे । मै आभारी रहू ँ ग ा। मे रे सिब सिे प्यारे दोस्त अमरजिीत सिे request है िक वह हमारे पापा की help कर दे । एक बे टे की तरह। और दोस्तोंक सिे भी request है । वह भी मे रे पापा की help कर दे । प्रदीप राणा जिो िक प्रीतम पुर ा मे रहता है । उसिे सिजिा जिरूर िमलनी चािहए मे र ी मौत का कारण िसिफर प्रदीप राणा है । वो मे रे चाचा के बे टे के पासि आता था और कहता था तू मे र ा भाई मै तुझे तं ग नहीं करूँ गा। पर अब वो सिबसिे ज्यादा हमे ही तं ग कर रहा है । मै अपनी पत्नी गुर िवन्दर कौर सिे माफी माँग ता हू ँ वो िहम्मत सिे हर काम को करे । मे ह नती wife है । वह दोनोंक बच्चोंक की दे ख भाल अच्छी तरह करे । मै यह कदम उठा रहा मुझे सिब भाई वह दोस्त मुझे माफ कर दे । वह मे रे पापा की जिरुर help करे : मे रे पापा भी बहु त बड़ी उमर के इं सि ान है उनकी उमर 77-78 सिाल की होगी। उनका अभी महीना पहले ही ऑपरे श न हु आ है । िजिसिसिे वह बहु त कमजिोर हो गए है । मै चाचा के बे टे सिे माफी माँग ता हू ँ मै उसिका सिाथ छोड़कर जिा रहा वह िहम्मत सिे काम ले । और यह के सि जिीते । भगवान उसिकी जिरूर मदद करे ग ा वह मे रे पापा की ध्यान रखे मै उसिका अित अहसिान मानूँग ा। अब मुझे मे रे company के मािलक Dr. B.K. Aggarwal सिे request है । उन्हीं जिो वकील िदया है उसिसिे request करके हमे मुझे और मे रे चाचा के के सि को िजितवा दे । मै उनका अित आभारी रहू ँ ग ा। मे र ी बहनोंक सिे request है िक वह अपनी भाभी की help करे और उन्हे हौंसिला दे । मै उनसिे माफी माँग ता हू ँ । मे रे दोस्तोंक सिे भी दोनोंक हाथ जिोड़कर request है वह मे रे पापा की जिरूर help करे मै उनका अित धन्यवादी रहू ँ ग ा।
(emphasis supplied)
(ii) It was alleged that on May 20, 2012 Smt. Gurvinder Kaur w/o deceased got recorded her statement alleging that the house bearing No. 3072/R-17, gali No. 10, Ranjeet Nagar, Delhi is in the possession of her SC No. 27/13 page 3 of 25 State vs. Pradeep Kumar Rana & Others father-in-law, Sh. Ajit Singh and other family members since 1960 and registry of said house is in her name. It was alleged that the said house was taken on lease by Late. Sh. Niranjan Singh, father of Sh. Ajit Singh from Smt. Veerwati (accused no.3). After the death of Sh. Niranjan Singh, said property was devolved upon Sh. Ajit Singh and in the year 2005, Sh.
Ajit Singh had executed a Sale Deed in the name of complainant Smt. Gurvinder Kaur.
(iii) It was alleged that for the last some time, one person named Pardeep Rana (accused no.1) who claimed himself son of Smt. Veerwati (accused no.3) used to come to her father-in-law Sh. Ajit Singh and his brother Sh. Avtar Singh, along with his uncle who is working in a bank, in a van bearing No. DL-1K-1066 and some times in a vehicle bearing No. DL- 1K-2714 and threatened both the families either to give money to Pardeep Rana (accused no.1) as per the market value of the said property otherwise he would get vacated them from their houses. It was alleged that due to said threat, her husband i.e. deceased was perturbed. It was alleged that deceased used to make a request to accused Pardeep Rana not to do such things as they had already become the owner of the house but accused Pardeep Rana and his uncle did not give any heed to his request. Rather they demanded money. It was alleged that threat was given to Sh. Avtar Singh either to give money or to give a floor as Sh. Avtar Singh was intended to reconstruct the house after demolishing the present structure. It was contended that accused Pardeep Rana had also harassed their neighbours Sukhvinder Singh, Puran Singh and Kulwant Singh and also harassed their another neighbour Rajiv Dheer and extorted some money from him.
(iv) It was alleged that her husband i.e deceased Gurdev Singh
SC No. 27/13 page 4 of 25
State vs. Pradeep Kumar Rana & Others
used to remain perturbed due to the said activities of accused Pardeep Rana and ultimately he had committed suicide on May 18, 2012. It was alleged that accused Pardeep Rana and his mother Veerwati and his Chacha are responsible for his death.
(v) On her statement, an FIR for the offence punishable under Section 306/384/120B IPC was registered.
3. After completing investigation, a challan for the offence punishable under Section 306/384/120B IPC was filed against the accused persons.
4. Learned counsel appearing for accused No. 1 sagaciously contended that he is the son of accused No. 3 Veerwati, who is the owner of property in question. It was submitted that it is admitted case of prosecution that the property in question was given on lease and it is settled law that lessee always remains a lessee. It was further contended that Veerwati had never sold the said property either to the deceased or any member of his family. It was contended that being a law abiding citizen, accused No. 3 had taken lawful course to redress her claim and to take possession of premises back from the family members of complainant by filing a civil suit against Sh. Ajit Singh and Sh. Avtar Singh who are occupying the premises unlawfully even after the expiry of period of lease.
5. It was further argued that mere fact that the name of accused No. 1 is mentioned in the suicide note is not ipso-facto sufficient to attract the provisions of Section 306 IPC. In support of his contention, he relied upon the following judgements, namely : -
SC No. 27/13 page 5 of 25 State vs. Pradeep Kumar Rana & Others
(i). Ajit Singh versus State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) decided on November 24, 2009 by the High Court of Delhi in Criminal M.C. No. 1969 of 2009
(ii). Ramesh Chander Sibbal versus State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) decided on August 13, 2009 by the High Court of Delhi in Criminal Revision Petition No. 277 of 2009.
6. It was further contended that whatever dispute between both the parties was, it was a dispute of civil nature and mere fact that Gurdev Singh had committed suicide leaving behind suicide note is not sufficient to make out a prima-facie case against accused No. 1.
7. Learned counsel appearing for accused No. 2 and 3 vigorously contended that there is no iota of evidence against them as the entire prosecution case is based on the suicide note but there is not even a single word against accused No. 2 and 3 in the said suicide note. It was further submitted that even there is no other admissible evidence on record to prove their role in the alleged unfortunate incident. It was submitted that mere fact that accused No. 3 is the owner of the property and she had sent a legal notice through her counsel and thereafter filed a civil suit is not sufficient to attract the provisions of Section 306/384/120B IPC against her. Similarly, the mere fact that the accused No. 2 is the relative of accused No. 1 is also not sufficient to frame a charge against him for the offence punishable under Section 306/384 IPC. It was contended that the name of accused No. 2 is also not mentioned in the suicide note.
8. On the other hand, counsel appearing for the complainant and learned Additional Public Prosecutor refuted the said contentions by SC No. 27/13 page 6 of 25 State vs. Pradeep Kumar Rana & Others astutely arguing that accused persons had hatched a conspiracy and they all acted under the conspiracy, thus all are liable for the acts of each other. It was further submitted that initially, the property in question was taken on lease but in 2005 Veerwati had sold the property to Sh. Ajit Singh and Sh. Avtar Singh. Thus, since 2005, the accused persons had no right, title or interest in the property in question, hence they had no occasion either to visit the house of complainant or to advance any kind of threat or to send any legal notice. It was contended that initially accused No. 1 along with accused No. 2 came to the house of deceased and threatened Ajit Singh and Avtar Singh either to give money qua the said property as per the market rate otherwise he would throw them out from the said property. The said threat became the sole cause of depression to the deceased and this fact is proved from the statement of complainant and other witnesses. It was further contended that when Avtar Singh intended to raise fresh construction over the plot after demolishing the previous structure, accused No. 1 Pradeep Rana threatened Avtar Singh either to give money or to register one floor in his name otherwise he would not permit to raise construction. It was further submitted that it was the modus-operandi of accused Pradeep Rana to extort money. It was contended that accused no. 1 had also extorted money from many other persons of the locality. It was contended that accused No. 1 along with accused no.2 visited the house of Ajit Singh and Avtar Singh and accused no.1 threatened them in the presence of accused No. 2, which prima-facie shows that accused No. 2 is also actively involved in the conspiracy. It was further submitted that when Ajit Singh and Avtar Singh failed to succumb to the illegal demands of Pradeep Rana, he had got sent a legal notice through his mother to Sh. Ajit Singh and Sh. Avtar Singh. It was argued that when the said notice and thereafter court summons were delivered, it caused mental tension to the deceased and gave an impression that he would have to lose his property SC No. 27/13 page 7 of 25 State vs. Pradeep Kumar Rana & Others and due to that reason, he had committed suicide on the intervening night of May 18, 2012 to May 19, 2012. it was contended that besides suicide note, there are other circumstances which are sufficient to make out a prima-facie case against all the accused persons for the offences punishable under Section 306/184/120B IPC. In support of their contentions, they relied upon the following judgements : -
(i). Vijay Sakhija & Another versus State 2011 (9) AD Delhi 386
(ii). Praveen Pradhan versus State of Uttranchal 2012 (10) JT 478.
(iii). B. P. Singh & Another versus State 2009 (5) AD Delhi 364.
(iv). Amit Kapoor versus Ramesh Chander & Another 2012 (9) JT 312.
(v). Aruna Chadha versus State 2013 (6) LRC 306 (Delhi).
9. It was further contended that counsel for accused No. 1 has relied upon the judgement Ramesh Chand Sibbal versus Govt. of NCT of Delhi knowingly well that the said judgment had already been set-aside by the Apex Court in Amit Kapoor versus Ramesh Chand (Supra) which shows that the counsel for accused No.1 has also attempted to mislead the Court.
10. I have heard rival submissions advanced by learned counsel for complainant, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and counsels appearing for the accused persons at length, perused the record carefully and gave my thoughtful consideration to their contentions.
SC No. 27/13 page 8 of 25 State vs. Pradeep Kumar Rana & Others
11. Before dealing with the contentions raised by counsel for both the parties, I prefer to refer the principles laid down by the Apex Court on the point of framing of charge in Prafulla Kumar Samal (1979) 3 SCC 4 and reiterated by the High Court of Delhi in Aruna Chadha's case (supra). The principles are as under:
"(1) That the Judge while considering the question of framing the charges under Section 227 of the Code has the undoubted power to sift and weigh the evidence for the limited purpose of finding out whether or not a prima facie case against the accused has been made out. (2) Where the materials placed before the court disclose grave suspicion against the accused which has not been properly explained the court will be fully justified in framing a charge and proceeding with the trial. (3) The test to determine a prima facie case would naturally depend upon the facts of each case and it is difficult to lay down a rule of universal application. By and large however if two views are equally possible and the Judge is satisfied that the evidence produced before him while giving rise to some suspicion but not grave suspicion against the accused, he will be fully within his right to discharge the accused.
(4) That in exercising his jurisdiction under Section 227 of the Code the Judge which under the present Code is a senior and experienced court cannot act merely as a post office or a mouthpiece of the prosecution, but has to consider the broad probabilities of the case, the total effect of the evidence and the documents produced before the court, any basic infirmities appearing in the case and so on. This however does not mean that the Judge should make a roving enquiry into the pros and cons of the matter and weigh the evidence as if he was conducting a trial."
(emphasis supplied)
12. In Aruna Chadha case (supra) it was held:-
SC No. 27/13 page 9 of 25 State vs. Pradeep Kumar Rana & Others
33. Thus, on the basis of the judgments relied upon by the parties and noting the language used in Sections 227 and 228 of the Code it can very well be stated that if on the basis of material placed before the Court the commission of offence appears to be probable, the Court shall be duty bound to frame the charge against the accused. To put it differently, if two views are possible and there is strong suspicion against the accused again the Court would be justified in framing the charge. As against this, if there is only a mere suspicion and two views are possible, the Court on the basis of mere suspicion should not proceed to frame the charge against an accused and should in the circumstances discharge him without making him undergo the ordeal of the trial.
(emphasis supplied)
13. Thus, it becomes clear that a charge will be framed only if prosecution succeeds either to show that collected material is sufficient to make out a prima-facie that offence has been committed or there is strong suspicion against the accused persons. But if prosecution able to show mere suspicion, accused persons shall be entitled for discharge as prayed by them.
14. I have perused the case law cited by counsel for complainant and learned Additional Public Prosecutor. It is pertinent to point out that in all the cases, accused was in a dominating position whereas victim/deceased was in inferior position and accused misused his position by unlawfully and illegally harassing the victim continuously. For instance, in Vijay Sakhija's case and Praveen Pradhan's case (supra) accused was the employer and victim was employee and in both the cases accused misused his position and not only harassed the victim continuously, but also humiliated the victims in front of other staff members, abused the victims; obtained signature on blank paper. In those peculiar facts, it was held that there were sufficient material to proceed with the trial. Similarly, in B.P. SC No. 27/13 page 10 of 25 State vs. Pradeep Kumar Rana & Others Singh's case (supra) victim was a student and allegations were levelled against the teachers. Victim was shown absent in one paper and was given "0" mark despite the fact that he appeared in the exam and when victim made a representation, he was asked to give back paper. But he refused to give back paper. Though victim made repeated requests to rectify the said error but instead of rectifying the said error, victim was harassed, humiliated, consequently, victim committed suicide. In those peculiar facts, Court refused to quash the criminal proceedings. Similarly, in Amit Kapoor's case (supra) accused was in dominating position as he had occupied the property of deceased on false promise; obtained his signature on blank stamp papers or without explaining the contents of documents; sold the property of deceased without authority and did not give sale consideration to deceased; accused had given a sum of ` 5.00 lac but obtained the acknowledgement of ` 15 lac; refused to vacate the premises. In the said matter, learned Trial Court framed the charges against the accused but High Court dropped the main charge of Section 306 IPC. In those peculiar facts and circumstances, Apex Court held that High Court should not have interfered with the order of learned Trial Court and further held that there was sufficient material to proceed with the trial. Thus, it becomes clear that the facts involved in the above cases were totally different from the facts of the case in hand.
15. Now coming to facts of the case in hand.
16. It is admitted case of prosecution that Gurdev Singh (since deceased) had committed suicide leaving behind a suicide note. As per suicide note, following allegations are against the accused Pradeep Rana :-
(i) Pradeep Rana was harassing him and his uncle;
SC No. 27/13 page 11 of 25
State vs. Pradeep Kumar Rana & Others
(ii) Pradeep Rana was filing false cases;
(iii) Pradeep Rana intended to grab their house in which they were
residing since 1960;
(iv) Pradeep Rana had also harassed other residents of the
locality;
(v) Pradeep Rana was saying, it was Khasra No. 44 and not 49;
(vi) Pradeep Rana had got prepared false papers;
(vii) Pradeep Rana who is residing at Pitampura should be
punished;
(viii) Only Pradeep Rana is responsible for his death;
(ix) Pradeep Rana used to come to the son of his uncle and used
to state that he (deceased) was his brother and he would not harass him but now Pradeep Rana is harassing him the most.
17. As per complaint, the property in question is in the possession of Ajit Singh, father-in-law of complainant since 1960 and same was taken on lease by Niranjan Singh, father of Ajit Singh from Veerwati and after the death of Niranjan Singh, property was devolved upon Ajit Singh. In 2005, Ajit Singh had executed a sale deed in the name of complainant. During investigation, investigating officer collected the lease deed dated February 23, 1960. The said deed was executed by Sehaj Ram in favour of Sardar Teja Singh for the period of 99 years and lease deed pertains to a plot measuring 75 square yards located in Khasra No. 49, Village Shadi Pur, Abadi, Ranjeet Nagar on the annual rent of ` 27/-, which was further leased out to Mr. Niranjan Singh vide Lease Deed dated April 13, 1966.
18. Sehaj Ram is the father of Veerwati. As per prosecution case, SC No. 27/13 page 12 of 25 State vs. Pradeep Kumar Rana & Others Veerwati had executed GPA dated March 15, 1996 in favour of Avtar Singh in respect of plot measuring 35 square yards out of the said plot of 75 sq. yards located in Khasra No. 49, Shadi Pur. It is also admitted case of prosecution case that on March 21, 1996 Veerwati had executed another GPA in favour of Ajit Singh in respect of plot measuring 40 square yards out of total plot measuring 75 square yards from Khasra No. 49 located at Village Shadi Pur. It is also admitted case of prosecution that at the time of executing the GPA in favour Ajit Singh and Avtar Singh, Veerwati had also executed SPA and Will in their favour in respect of the aforesaid portion.
19. Perusal of the said GPA, SPA and Will reveals that the same were executed without any sale consideration.
20. It is also admitted case of prosecution that the property in question was initially given on lease and thereafter Veerwati had sold the said property to Ajit Singh and Avtar Singh against consideration. But during investigation, investigating officer failed to collect any document showing that any sale consideration was exchanged between Veerwati on one hand and Ajit Singh & Avtar Singh on the other hand. Thus, there is no admissible evidence to show prima-facie that any sale consideration was exchanged between them. Admittedly, Veerwati had executed GPA, SPA or Will but these documents are not sufficient to transfer title in favour of another person. GPA only authorises a person to manage the property on behalf of the executant. Similarly, Will operates only on the death of the executant. Thus, prosecution failed to clear how Ajit Singh and Avtar Singh could get the title of the property on the basis of said documents.
21. It is also admitted case of prosecution that on July 27, 2005 Ajit Singh had executed a sale deed in favour of complainant Gurvinder SC No. 27/13 page 13 of 25 State vs. Pradeep Kumar Rana & Others Kaur in the sum of ` 50,000/- whereas Avtar Singh had executed a sale deeds in favour of his wife in the sum of ` 50,000/-. Perusal of the said sale deed reveals that Ajit Singh and Avtar Singh claimed themselves as attorney of Veerwati in the sale deed and executed the sale deed on her behalf. It means that it is admitted case of prosecution that Ajit Singh and Avtar Singh were not the owner of the property, rather they executed the sale deeds being the attorney of Veerwati. If it is so, then sale consideration of ` 50,000/- should go to Veerwati but there is no evidence to show that the sale consideration was ever given to Veerwati. Prosecution has failed to explain how a person can get title over a property without making payment to the owner/seller. Needless to say that it is settled law that a lessee always remains a lessee.
22. There is nothing on record which may suggest that any agreement to sell was ever executed between Veerwati on the one hand and Ajit Singh & Avtar Singh on the other hand or in favour of any other person. Even in the GPA or in the sale deed, it is no where recited that the buyers were residing in the property being lessee or same has been sold to them by Veerwati against consideration.
23. It is also admitted case of prosecution that Veerwati had sent a legal notice through her counsel Sh. R.S. Lathwal, Advocate alleging that Ajit Singh and Avtar Singh were lessee in the property and same has come to an end by efflux of time and asked them to hand over peaceful vacant possession of the plot. Admittedly, the said legal notice was sent on May 03, 2012 to Ajit Singh whereas notice was sent to Avtar Singh on April 27, 2012. Both the notices were sent by Veerwati through her counsel Sh. R.S. Lathwal, Advocate.
SC No. 27/13 page 14 of 25 State vs. Pradeep Kumar Rana & Others
24. Thus, it is admitted case of prosecution that the said legal notices were sent to Ajit Singh and Avtar Singh and not the deceased. It is also admitted case of prosecution that Ajit Singh and Avtar Singh are residing in their respective premises along with their family. No doubt, the said legal notice may cause some harassment to the noticee and their family members but the act of sending legal noticee cannot be considered as an abetment either to the noticee i.e. Ajit Singh and Avtar Singh or their family member. Mere by sending legal notice neither Pradeep Rana nor Veerwati was in a position to get possession of the property without following due process of law. Thus, there was no threat to the possession of their property.
25. It is also admitted case of prosecution that when Ajit Singh and Avtar Singh failed to hand over the possession to Veerwati, she had filed a civil suit on May 07, 2012 in the Court of learned Senior Civil Judge (West District), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi for the possession, mandatory and permanent injunction against Ajit Singh and Avtar Singh. Pursuant to the said suit, notice/summons were sent to Ajit Singh and Avtar Singh on May 09, 2012 for the date fixed i.e. May 25, 2012. Service of summons in civil matter is a due process of law to serve defendant and asked him to appear in the court and answer all the material questions relating to suit and answer to the claim. It is also mentioned in the summons itself either defendants can appear in person or through their pleader. Thus, mere fact that the Court had issued a summon on the suit filed by Veerwati cannot amount abetment to the deceased to commit suicide. At the cost of repetition, it is pertinent to point out that the said summons were sent to Ajit Singh and Avtar Singh and not to deceased. No one can imagine that the family member of defendants would commit suicide only on receipt of a legal notice. If service of court summons is started to be considered as an SC No. 27/13 page 15 of 25 State vs. Pradeep Kumar Rana & Others abetment to invoke the provisions of Section 306 IPC, then it will be difficult for any person to approach the Court for redressal of his/her grievances.
26. Assuming for the sake of arguments that the Veerwati had filed the civil suit just to harass Ajit Singh, Avtar Singh and their family members and to evict them from the property in question. But she followed due process of law as provided under law. If her claim is found false, her suit would be liable to dismiss and defendants shall have a right to claim damages from her. Even if she succeeds to get a decree, even in that case the said decree would be subject to appeal, thus, there was no immediate apprehension either to Ajit Singh & Avtar Singh or their family members that they would have to vacate the premises. Mere fact that one of the family member i.e. deceased had taken the extreme step i.e committed suicide is not sufficient to hold prima-facie that the act of sending legal notice and filing of suit amounts abetment to commit suicide. Moreover, no one can prevent a person to approach the Court for redressal of his/her grievances. If Veerwati thinks that she had not sold the property to Ajit Singh and Avatar Singh and their possession over the property is illegal and unlawful, she had no other option except to file a suit. How can her lawful action be considered abetment to invoke Section 306 IPC.
27. Since the family members of deceased were in a possession of the property, deceased and his family were in a dominating position as they had no immediate threat to lose their possession and they had an opportunity to defend their possession before the Court of law. Thus, there was no reason to become panic only on receipt of legal notice or Court summons.
28. Complainant in her complaint alleged that about one month ago, Pradeep Rana had got sent a legal notice through her mother and SC No. 27/13 page 16 of 25 State vs. Pradeep Kumar Rana & Others thereafter her husband became perplexed and became afraid that Pradeep Rana would get them vacated from the house. No doubt, whenever a person received a legal notice, same may cause some metal tension but it does not mean that sending of a legal notice amounts any kind of abetment to the noticee. Needless to say that defendants had an opportunity to take legal advise and to send suitable reply to the notice. Complainant further alleged that on May 17, 2012 Pradeep Rana got sent legal notice through her mother from the court of learned Civil Judge due to which her husband became perplexed and committed suicide in the night. As already discussed that sending a summon to the defendant is a legal process which every court has to follow. Defendant always get an opportunity to oppose the claim of plaintiff and to submit his plea before the Court.
29. Though in the suicide note it was alleged that Pradeep Rana had prepared false documents but during investigation no such document was collected and prosecution failed to highlight any such document. Thus, there is no iota of evidence to show that Pardeep Rana had fabricated any document.
30. Though complainant alleged that Pradeep Rana had made a demand of ` 15 lac, yet no such allegation is mentioned in the suicide note. Even, no such allegation is levelled in the FIR. It is admitted case of prosecution case that deceased had committed suicide on the intervening night of May 17, 2012 and May 18, 2012 and FIR was lodged on May 20, 2012 but there is no allegation of ` 15 lac in the FIR. On May 18, 2012 the statement of complainant was also recorded and even in the said statement, no such allegation was levelled. Surprisingly, prosecution has also filed a written complaint undated, which was received in the police station on May 18, 2012 and in the said complaint, it is alleged that about SC No. 27/13 page 17 of 25 State vs. Pradeep Kumar Rana & Others 1½ months ago, Pradeep Rana, Veerwati and his uncle, who is working in the bank met with her husband and asked him to give ` 15 lac otherwise they would file false case to evict him from his house. But her husband did not give any heed to the said threat. Though there are doubts in which manner the said document has been placed on record, if the said complaint was made prior to May 18, 2012, question arises what action was taken by the SHO; if it was made on May 18, 2012, then where was the occasion for the investigating officer to record separate statement and why the FIR was not registered on the said complaint on May 18, 2012 itself. Since at this stage, this Court is not supposed to go in detail and to evaluate the evidence collected by the prosecution, thus assuming for the sake of arguments that the said complaint was made by Smt. Gurvinder Kaur, complainant, but the said complaint is also not helpful to the prosecution to attract the provisions of Section 306 IPC because she herself admitted that her husband did not give any heed to the said demand/threat. This prima- facie shows that the alleged threat, if any, did not abet the deceased to take the extreme step to end his life.
31. Further, deceased in his suicide note made another allegation that Pradeep Rana used to visit son of his uncle and used to say that deceased was his brother and he would not harass him but now he is harassing him at the most. In his suicide note, he did not state how Pradeep Rana used to harass. But from the circumstances, it appears that Pradeep Rana had harassed the deceased by sending a legal notice or filing a civil suit through his mother. It has already been discussed that the said steps cannot be considered as an abetment to any person to commit suicide.
32. Now coming to the cases cited by learned counsel for the SC No. 27/13 page 18 of 25 State vs. Pradeep Kumar Rana & Others complainant.
33. The facts of the case in hand are different from the facts of case of Amit Kapoor versus Ramesh Chander & Another (Supra) as in the said case, allegations against the accused in the suicide note were that he had grabbed the property of deceased illegally, he had sold the some property of the deceased and failed to give sale consideration. He obtained their signature on certain documents without explaining its content. Though accused gave ` 5 lac to the deceased but obtained signature on the amount of ` 15 lac and claimed that he had made entire payment to the deceased and also threatened the deceased to sign otherwise he would get kidnapped her grand children. There are certain specific allegations against the accused. Thus, in those peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, it was held that there was no sufficient ground for the High Court of Delhi to quash the charges of Section 306/34 IPC framed by the learned Trial Court.
33. On the contrary in the instant case, property is in the possession of family of deceased and accused were taking legal course to take back possession of said property. Accordingly, accused had sent legal notice and filed a civil suit and Court had sent summons to the defendant.
34. Similarly, the facts of case Vijay Sakhija & Another versus State (Supra) and Praveen Pradhan versus State of Uttranchal (Supra) are totally different from the case in hand. In both the cases, accused was employer and in a dominating position over the deceased. Deceased were humiliated, insulted, tortured and threatened and in both the cases deceased made specific allegations against their employer. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, Court held that there are sufficient ground to proceed with the trial and refused to quash the charges.
SC No. 27/13 page 19 of 25 State vs. Pradeep Kumar Rana & Others
36. Similarly in case B. P. Singh & Another versus State (Supra) the facts are totally different. In the said case, student who appeared in the examination was shown absent and "0" mark was given to him and when he made representation, no heed was given to his request. Rather, he was forced to give in writing for back paper, which was against his interest. In the said matter, accused approached the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi for quashing of the FIR but Hon'ble High Court refused to quash the FIR. At the time of dismissing the writ petition, Hon'ble Court also clarified that observations made in the order were not made to influence the opinion to be formed by the learned Trial Court at any subsequent stage on the independent assessment of the evidence. Thus, even Hon'ble High Court did not consider whether the allegations levelled by prosecution were sufficient to make out a prima-facie case or not. Prosecution case was examined only to the limited extent whether the allegations levelled in the FIR were sufficient to quash the FIR or not.
37. Similarly, the facts of Aruna Chadha versus State (Supra) are totally different. In the said matter, Court framed the charges against the petitioner on the basis of circumstances referred to (a) to (y) which were highlighted by the learned Trial Court in its order. On the basis those circumstances, it was held that there are sufficient evidence to proceed with the matter against the accused.
38. In case Praveen Pradhan versus State of Uttranchal (Supra) Apex Court held that instigation has to be gathered from the circumstances of a particular case. Para 15 of the judgement is reproduced as under: -
SC No. 27/13 page 20 of 25 State vs. Pradeep Kumar Rana & Others Para 15. In fact, from the above discussion it is apparent that instigation has to be gathered from the circumstances of a particular case. No straight-jacket formula can be laid down to find out as to whether in a particular case there has been instigation which force the person to commit suicide. In a particular case, there may not be direct evidence in regard to instigation which may have direct nexus to suicide. Therefore, in such a case an inference has to be drawn from the circumstances and it is to be determined whether circumstances had been such which in fact had created the situation that a person felt totally frustrated and committed suicide. More so, while dealing with an application for quashing of the proceedings, a Court cannot form a firm opinion, rather a tentative view that would evoke the presumption referred to under Section 228 Cr. P.C. (emphasis supplied)
39. From the foregoing discussion, the following facts can be safely culled out:-
(i). That property in question was let out initially to the father of Ajit Singh;
(ii). That prosecution claimed that Veerwati had sold the property to Ajit Singh and Avtar Singh in the year 1996 through GPA, SPA and Will;
(iii). That the said GPA, SPA were without consideration;
(iv). That prosecution failed to establish that there was any exchange of sale consideration between Veerwati on the one hand and Ajit Singh and Avtar Singh on the other hand, this prima-facie shows that Ajit Singh and Avtar Singh cannot get any title over the property;
(v). That Ajit Singh and Avtar Singh executed the sale deed
SC No. 27/13 page 21 of 25
State vs. Pradeep Kumar Rana & Others
being the attorney of Veerwati in favour of complainant and his wife
respectively against the consideration of ` 50,000/- each but there is no evidence that the said consideration amount was ever given to Veerwati;
(vi). If Ajit Singh and Avtar Singh executed the sale deed being attorney, they were supposed to give the sale consideration to Veerwati;
(vii). That Veerwati had sent a legal notice to Ajit Singh and Avtar Singh through her counsel Sh. R.S. Lathwal, Advocate which is lawful process to proceed with her claim as provided under law;
(viii). When Ajit Singh and Avtar Singh failed to hand over peaceful and vacant possession as claimed in the legal notice, Veerwati had filed a civil suit for possession, permanent and mandatory injunction against Ajit Singh and Avtar Singh, which is lawful process as provided under law;
(ix). That pursuant to the civil suit filed by Veerwati, Court had issued summons to them;
(x). This shows that Veerwati had taken due process to prove her claim over the property;
(xi). That on one can assume that any family member of the defendants would commit suicide on taking lawful course to enforce her claim.
(xii) That threat of demand of ` 15 lac, if any, was not taken seriously by the deceased.
SC No. 27/13 page 22 of 25 State vs. Pradeep Kumar Rana & Others
40. In the light of foregoing discussion, I am of the considered opinion that there are not sufficient material to make out a prima-facie case for the offence punishable under Section 306 IPC against any of the accused persons.
41. Now coming to the next question as to whether there are sufficient evidence to make out a prima-facie case for the offence punishable under Section 384 IPC or not?
42. Extortion is defined under Section 383 IPC and same reads as under :-
383. Extortion - Whoever intentionally puts any person in fear of any injury to that person, or to any other, and thereby dishonestly induces the person so put in fear to deliver to any person any property or valuable security, or anything signed or sealed which may be converted into a valuable security, commits "extortion"
(emphasis supplied)
43. Injury is defined under Section 44 IPC and same reads as under : -
44. "Injury" - the word "injury" denotes any harm whatever illegally caused to any person, in body, mind, reputation or property.
44. A Combined reading of Section 44 and 383 IPC makes it clear that to make out a prima-facie case for the offence of extortion under Section 383 IPC, prosecution has to show that harm was illegally caused to SC No. 27/13 page 23 of 25 State vs. Pradeep Kumar Rana & Others any person. Thus, action of a person should be illegal and this fact is clear from illustrations appended to Section 383 IPC, which are as under:
Illustrations:
(a) A threatens to publish a defamatory libel concerning Z unless Z gives him money. He thus induces Z to give him money. A has committed extortion.
(b) A threatens Z that he will keep Z's child in wrongful confinement, unless Z will sign and deliver to A a promissory note binding Z to pay certain monies to A. Z signs and delivers the note. A has committed extortion.
(c) A threatens to send club-men to plough up Z's field unless Z will sign and deliver to B a bond binding Z under a penalty to deliver certain produce to B, and thereby induces Z to sign and deliver the bond. A has committed extortion.
(d) A, by putting Z in fear of grievous hurt, dishonestly induces Z to sign or affix his seal to a blank paper and deliver it to A. Z signs and delivers the paper to A. Here, as the paper so signed may be converted into a valuable security. A has committed extortion.
(emphasis supplied)
45. In the instant case, the allegations against the accused Pardeep Rana and his uncle that they came to the house of Ajit Singh and Avtar Singh and threatened them either to give money equal to the market rate of the land otherwise they would evict them by filing a Court case. Filing a Court case is due process of law to evict a person from the property. It is also due process of law to assert a claim to redress his grievances. Thus, the alleged threat that either to give the price of the land as per market rate or face Court case is missing the ingredient of illegal harm as mentioned in Section 44 IPC. Thus, to my mind the threat of SC No. 27/13 page 24 of 25 State vs. Pradeep Kumar Rana & Others getting premises vacated through Court does not amount extortion as defined under Section 383 IPC.
46. Pondering over the ongoing discussion, I am of the considered opinion that there are not sufficient material to make out a prima-facie case for the offences punishable under Section 306/384/120B IPC against any of the accused persons, thus, I hereby discharge all the accused persons from thereunder.
Announced in the open Court
on this 6th day of May, 2014 (PAWAN KUMAR JAIN)
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-01
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI/sv
SC No. 27/13 page 25 of 25