Delhi District Court
Sant Prasad Ojha vs Radhey Shyam Sharma on 30 January, 2015
1
IN THE COURT OF SH. SANJEEV AGGARWAL SPECIAL JUDGE
CBI03 (PC ACT) DELHI
CR No. 01/15
Sant Prasad Ojha
S/o Late Sh. Kailash Pati Ojha
R/o Flat No. B11, Krishna Apartment,
D144, Khanpur,
New Delhi110062 .....Petitioner
Versus
1. Radhey Shyam Sharma
2. Pradeep Kumar
3. Bhim
4. Megh Singh
5. Inder Singh
6. Ram Kishan
7. Dudhani
All employees of M/s Texmaco Ltd.
Office PostKamla Nagar
Through SHO, PS Roop Nagar,
Delhi
8. Police Officials of
Police Post Kamla Nagar
Through SHO, PS Roop Nagar
Delhi
9. State .... Respondents
O R D E R
Vide this order, I shall dispose off the present revision filed by the CR NO. 01/15 Sant Prasad Ojha Vs. Radhey Shyam Sharma & Ors 2 petitioner against the impugned order dated 15.10.14, whereby his complaint was dismissed(parties are hereinafter referred to as their respective status). Brief facts which can be culled out from the impugned judgment of Ld. Trial Court are as under
In brief, the complainant has alleged that since 1975 he was residing at Quarter No. 14/179 New Birla Lines, Kamla Nagar, Delhi07 alongwith his family members. M/s Taxmaco Ltd. filed complaint against the complainant in respect of the aforesaid quarter in the court of Sh. Digvinay Singh ACMM, Delhi in which case vide order dated 25.02.2010, the complainant was convicted U/s 630 of Companies Act and he was directed to vacate the aforesaid quarter. The complainant against the aforesaid order filed an appeal U/s 374 Cr.P.C which was also dismissed by the Ld. Sessions Court of Ms. Poonam Chaudhary, the then Ld. ASJ, Central Delhi on 30.04.2010. The complainant was having legal right to file Criminal Revision before the Hon'ble High Court within 90 days of the CR NO. 01/15 Sant Prasad Ojha Vs. Radhey Shyam Sharma & Ors 3 dismissal of an appeal. The complainant in second May, 2010 went to the Allahbad High Court to look after his other case alongwith his family members and locked the aforesaid quarter. On 03.06.10, the complainant was informed through telephonic call that the accused persons who were the employees of M/s Taxmaco Ltd., alongwith other muscle men and police officers of the police post of Kamla Nagar with criminal conspiracy and their common intention broke open the locks of the aforesaid quarter and committed decoity and took away Rs. 3540 thousand in cash and jewellery of Rs. 56 lakhs which was kept in Almirah and boxes in the quarter and thrown out the household articles on road and took the possession of the house illegally. The complainant also given the information about the aforesaid incident to the higher police officers and other higher authority on 04.06.10 by telegram but was of no avail. Hence, the present complaint was CR NO. 01/15 Sant Prasad Ojha Vs. Radhey Shyam Sharma & Ors 4 filed by the complainant.
In presummoning evidence, the complainant has examined himself as CW1, Sh. Kali Kant Jha as CW2 and Sh. Pankaj Kumar, LDC record room(criminal), THC as CW3. Thereafter, the presummoning evidence was closed.
The complainant has deposed that the accused persons had broken open the locks of his quarter and removed the goods from the aforesaid property illegally. Except the oral testimony of the complainant, there is nothing on the record to show that the possession of the quarter was taken illegally by the accused persons. The complainant has himself filed the copy of the judgment dated 25.02.2010 and order on sentence dated 15.03.2010 passed by Sh. Digvinay Singh, the then Ld. ACMM(Special Acts), Central, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi whereby the complainant was convicted for the offence U/s 630 of The Companies Act, 1956 and he was directed to CR NO. 01/15 Sant Prasad Ojha Vs. Radhey Shyam Sharma & Ors 5 handover the vacant possession of the property in question to the Taxmaco Company.
On the institution of the present complaint, the Ld. Predecessor has called for the action taken report from the SHO of PS Roop Nagar with regard to as to why the FIR was not registered on the complaint of the complainant. The SHO PS Roop Nagar has filed the action taken report and has submitted therein that the possession of the quarter was taken as per the compliance of the order of the Ld. Trial Court dated 25.05.2010 and after execution of the court order, a compliance report was also submitted in the court. It is submitted that the vacation of the quarter was legal and as per procedure. It was also submitted in the report that during taking possession of the house, normal household articles were removed and given to Sh. Anil Dubey on the direction of the complainant and there were no valuable CR NO. 01/15 Sant Prasad Ojha Vs. Radhey Shyam Sharma & Ors 6 articles. The testimony of CW2 is also with regard to taking possession of the quarter by the accused persons and by the police officers by removing the articles from the house and about the police officers informing him that they were having the orders of the court for the same.
Vide detailed order dated 15.10.2014, the compliant of the complainant was dismissed. It is against the said order that complainant has approached this court on various grounds. It is stated that the said order is contrary to law and has been passed without application of judicial mind. The Ld. Trial Court has caused miscarriage of justice by not following the provisions of Section 82 & 83 Cr.P.C which were necessary for getting the possession of the quarter in question. The petitioner even otherwise was never declared as Proclaimed Offender and is suffering from various ailments. The Ld. Trial Court also overlooked the reply dated 13.01.2011 filed by the SHO PS Roop Nagar to the application U/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. Therefore it is stated order dated 15.10.2014 is liable to be set aside.
I have heard Ld. counsel for the petitioner Sh. S.P.Upadhyay and perused the trial record.
After perusal of the record, it appears that there is no infirmity CR NO. 01/15 Sant Prasad Ojha Vs. Radhey Shyam Sharma & Ors 7 or illegality in the order in question. The compliant U/s 630 of The Companies Act was filed against the complainant before the court of Ld. ACMM, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi alleging that the complainant company mentioned therein had allotted one quarter to the present petitioner for convenience and for exigencies attached to his job, as he was working in the Mill of the said company and pursuant to that a licence agreement was entered between him and the said company. After the service of present petitioner came to an end with the said company, he was asked to vacate the said quarter which he did not. Therefore the said company was forced to file an application U/s 630 of the Companies Act. After full fledged trial the said complaint was allowed and the present petitioner was convicted U/s 630 of Companies Act as under.
A fine of Rs. 500/ per month was imposed on the convict from December 1996 onwards for each of the month till today. The period comes to 13 years and 3 months i.e 159 months. The fine amount of Rs. 500/ multiplied by 159 months comes to Rs.
79,500/. In default of payment of fine the convict shall undergo simple imprisonment for six months. The convict is granted one month time to deposit the fine amount failing CR NO. 01/15 Sant Prasad Ojha Vs. Radhey Shyam Sharma & Ors 8 which the convict would be taken into custody for undergoing sentence in default. It was further directed to the convict to handover the vacant possession of the property in question to the complainant company on or before 15.04.2010 failing which he shall undergo simple imprisonment for 2 years also.
The present petitioner preferred an appeal against the said order before the court of Ld. ASJ bearing appeal No. CA 17/10 which was also dismissed vide detailed order dated 30.04.10. After dismissal of the appeal,the trial court vide order dated 25.05.10 directed the SHO PS Roop Nagar for execution of NBWs against the present petitioner and also directed him to comply the order of the court for vacating the company quarter and also to submit compliance report on 05.06.10. Pursuant to that on 04.06.10 in compliance of the order of the said court, quarter which was in possession of the petitioner was got vacated in presence of police officials and the attorney of the said company. The applicant was not found present there, as he was apprehending his arrest pursuant to NBW. All the normal household articles which were found there were also taken into possession and inventory was prepared by the police persons and were submitted before this court.
Since the quarter of the present company has been got vacated by the order of Ld. ACMM pursuant to the judgment dated CR NO. 01/15 Sant Prasad Ojha Vs. Radhey Shyam Sharma & Ors 9 15.03.10 whereby complainant was convicted U/s 630 of the Companies Act and thereafter even the appeal preferred by the present complainant was also dismissed. Since present complainant had exhausted all his legal remedies which were available to him as per law the Ld. trial court was fully justified ordering in compliance of order dated 15.03.10 asking the police officials to get the quarter vacated. Since the complainant was not appearing, NBWs were also issued against him for compliance of the said order. So there is no infirmity in the order of the Ld. Trial Court. The Ld. Trial Court had proceeded with the matter as per the procedure established by law which was just and fair. The Trial Court had no other recourse but to ask for vacation of flat by simultaneously issuing NBWs against him. NBWs seems to have been issued against him to ensure the compliance of the order dated 15.03.10 and nothing more. As per the report of police officials inventory was prepared of articles which were found there at the time of vacation of the quarter in question. The Ld. Trial court was not under an obligation to issue process U/s 82 & 83 Cr.PC for getting the said house vacated.
Regarding dismissal of the complaint it has been rightly dismissed by the Ld. Trial Court, as no particulars or details of the jewellery have been mentioned in the complaint or in the testimonies CR NO. 01/15 Sant Prasad Ojha Vs. Radhey Shyam Sharma & Ors 10 of the witnesses examined by the complainant, nor such details were mentioned in the complaint made to the police Mark G dated 05.06.10. The Ld. Trial Court did not find the testimony of PW1 reliable with regard to allegations of the complainant that he had gone to Allahbad to look after his wife. There is no such evidence produced before this court. Therefore in the nut shell the order of Ld. Trial Court has been rightly passed by giving sufficient and cogent reasons for the same. The complaint filed by the complainant appears to be motivated one in order to seek revenge against the officials of the company and nothing more. Consequently there is no merits in the present revision petition. Same is dismissed.
TCR alongwith the copy of order be sent back to the Ld. Trial Court.
Revision Petition file be consigned to Record Room.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN (Sanjeev Aggarwal)
COURT ON 30.01.2015 Special Judge,
CBI03 (PC Act)
Delhi
CR NO. 01/15
Sant Prasad Ojha Vs. Radhey Shyam Sharma & Ors 11 CR NO. 01/15 Sant Prasad Ojha Vs. Radhey Shyam Sharma & Ors