Delhi District Court
S.M. Matloob vs The State Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi on 25 March, 2023
IN THE COURT OF SH. SONU AGNIHOTRI
ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE03
SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI
Criminal Appeal No. 99/2023
CNR No. DLSE010033702023
S.M. MATLOOB
S/o S.M. Quiyum
R/o I102, Batla House,
Jamia Nagar,
New Delhi25.
.... Appellant
VERSUS
THE STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI
.... Respondent
Date of institution : 25.03.2023
Date of reserving the order : 25.03.2023
Date of pronouncement : 25.03.2023
JUDGMENT
1. This is criminal appeal u/s 341 of the Code of Criminal CA 99/2023 S.M. Matloob Vs. The State Govt. of NCT of Delhi Page no....1 of 10 Procedure preferred by appellant against impugned order dated 14.02.2023 passed by court of Ms. Archita Garg, Ld. MM03 (Mahila Court), SouthEast District whereby application of appellant U/sec 340 Cr.P.C was dismissed.
2. Brief facts as mentioned in appeal are that appellant filed an application u/s 340 Cr.P.C. r/w Section 195 IPC and another application u/s 91 Cr.P.C.
3. It is stated that appellant is whistle blower and prosecutrix in FIR No. 157/2017 and 58/2017 PS Jamia Nagar in order to cover up unauthorized construction being done by her at behest of a BC lodged false cases against appellant.
4. It is prosecutrix in both the above said FIRs furnished entirely fake and false affidavits before MCD Appellant Tribunal. It is stated that property of prosecutrix was booked by MCD for unauthorized construction.
5. It is stated that prosecutrix gave false letter about appellant that he is a bad character and seeks to extort money CA 99/2023 S.M. Matloob Vs. The State Govt. of NCT of Delhi Page no....2 of 10 whereas in reality, not even a single complaint against appellant has been lodged besides above mentioned cases.
6. It is stated that prosecutrix is facing around dozen of cases in Courts and that prosecutrix is not having any ownership of plot No. I101 meaning thereby that she was deployed only for ulterior motive and intention.
7. Appellant has taken following grounds to challenge impugned order:-
a) Ld. Trial Court has passed impugned order without applying judicial mind and took very lightly false statements of prosecutrix as mere irrelevant contradictions whereas ownership of land and location of alleged incident are core and facts in issue. Prosecutrix has given false statement on oath u/s 164 Cr.P.C. and her examinationinchief.
b) Because Ld. Trial Court in impugned order mentioned that land is not subject matter of prosecution in connected criminal cases is grossly erred as motive behind lodging these CA 99/2023 S.M. Matloob Vs. The State Govt. of NCT of Delhi Page no....3 of 10 cases is land only. Prosecutrix deliberately tried to hide violation of orders of various Courts including Hon'ble Supreme Court. While granting bail to appellant, Ld. Sessions Court mentioned that there is civil dispute.
c) Because Ld. Trial Court mentioned in impugned order that prosecutrix falsely deposed regarding status of land, however, it is not allegation of appellant against prosecutrix but false statement on oath given by prosecutrix u/s 164 Cr.P.C.
which is also a core issue.
d) Because Ld. Trial Court seems to have taken the case lightly and casually and made serious error. In impugned order, it is mentioned that in FIR No. 157/2017, accused Matloob and his son came to her home, however, name or word son has not been used in FIR, statements u/s 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. and only name of appellant is mentioned as an accused.
e) Because there is no eye witness in both FIRs i.e. 58/2017 and 157/2017 and in these conditions only circumstantial CA 99/2023 S.M. Matloob Vs. The State Govt. of NCT of Delhi Page no....4 of 10 evidence can be relied upon.
f) Because Ld. Trial Court failed to exercise its judicial discretion on facts and circumstances of the case and basic components of motive, location and genuineness of prosecutrix statement are to be taken into account.
g) Because Ld. Trial Court failed to take statement and did not give an opportunity of being heard to appellant.
h) Because impugned order is against principles of natural justice and law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court and High Court in cases of perjury.
i) Because findings of Ld. Trial Court are against law. Such action by Ld. Trial Court will discourage law abiding citizens and every complainant against illegal activities will be falsely implicated in false cases.
j) Because on one hand, Mr. Anwar claims in MCD Tribunal that it is his property in 2017 whereas in 2022, prosecutrix claims the said property as her property. At the time CA 99/2023 S.M. Matloob Vs. The State Govt. of NCT of Delhi Page no....5 of 10 of lodging of FIRs, prosecutrix did not have any relation with property No. I101 and in orders passed by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi and letter issued by MCD, only name of Anwar Qureshi is mentioned meaning thereby that prosecutrix has nothing to do with it and the said property was a disputed property and prosecutrix was planted to get illegal construction done there.
k) Because impugned order was passed without considering Whistle Blower Protection Act - 2014, Witness Protection Schemes - 2018, Constitutional Rights Under Article 14, 15, 21, 39 and 51A and duty towards nation and society. Even appellant was offered Rs. 25 lakhs and one flat to take complaint back and with promise that prosecutrix shall apologize publicly for leveling false allegations.
8. It is prayed to call TCR, examine legality and propriety of impugned order and pass speaking order.
9. Alongwith present appeal, another appeal for dismissing CA 99/2023 S.M. Matloob Vs. The State Govt. of NCT of Delhi Page no....6 of 10 application of appellant u/s 91 Cr.P.C. has been filed by appellant.
10. I have heard arguments addressed by appellant and Ld. Addl. PP for State and perused record including trial court record and case files of FIR No. 157/17 PS Jamia Nagar and FIR No. 58/17 PS Jamia Nagar wherein appellant is accused.
11. Perusal of case file of FIR No. 157/2017 PS Jamia Nagar shows that in this case, charge u/s 506/509 IPC has been framed against appellant and prosecutrix has been partly examined-in- chief but examination-in-chief of prosecutrix is still not complete.
12. Perusal of case file of FIR No. 58/2017 PS Jamia Nagar shows that even charge has not been framed in the said case and it has come in ordersheets that quashing petition qua the said FIR has been filed by appellant before Hon'ble High Court of Delhi.
13. Appellant in application u/s 340 Cr.P.C. appears to be aggrieved of contradictory statements made by prosecutrix u/s CA 99/2023 S.M. Matloob Vs. The State Govt. of NCT of Delhi Page no....7 of 10 161 Cr.P.C. and u/s 164 Cr.P.C. but prosecutrix in FIR No. 58/2017 PS Jamia Nagar is yet to be examined before Court and in FIR No. 157/2017 PS Jamia Nagar has been only partly examined-in-chief. Without complete examination of prosecutrix, it is difficult to judge at this stage as to whether prosecution lodged by prosecutrix is false and that her statements u/s 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. are false.
14. So far as grievance of appellant regarding prosecutrix giving false statements regarding ownership of property No. I- 101 is concerned, the same has to be taken into account by concerned Courts / Forums and criminal Court dealing with sexual offences as such directly is not concerned with ownership of immovable property of prosecutrix and in case, appellant wishes to establish motive of prosecutrix, the same has to be done by way of cross-examination of prosecutrix and other prosecution witnesses and by leading defence evidence. At this stage, without even examination-in-chief of prosecutrix recorded completely in one of the FIR, I am of the view that no CA 99/2023 S.M. Matloob Vs. The State Govt. of NCT of Delhi Page no....8 of 10 proceedings u/s 340 Cr.P.C. could be initiated against prosecutrix. Ld. Trial Court has rightly observed in impugned order that in overall factual matrix and considering the fact that land is not subject matter of prosecution in the connected criminal cases, no reasons are forthcoming for initiating proceedings against non applicants u/s 340 Cr.P.C. r/w Section 195 IPC.
15. So far as filing of another appeal qua disposal of application of appellant u/s 91 Cr.P.C. is concerned, I am of the view that no appeal while disposing of order on application u/s 91 Cr.P.C. is maintainable and only revision against such an order can be filed. Further, two appeals can not be clubbed together and remedy has to be availed separately qua different orders.
16. In view of my above made discussion, I am of the view that no fault can be found with impugned order dated 14.02.2023. Appeal against order dated 04.01.2023 is not maintainable because of reasons mentioned above. Appeals CA 99/2023 S.M. Matloob Vs. The State Govt. of NCT of Delhi Page no....9 of 10 filed by appellant are without merits and are accordingly dismissed.
17. Trial court record be sent back along with the copy of this judgment.
18. Appeal file be consigned to record room.
Dictated and Announced (Sonu Agnihotri)
in the open court ASJ03 (SouthEast),
on 25.03.2023 Saket Courts, Delhi
CA 99/2023 S.M. Matloob Vs. The State Govt. of NCT of Delhi Page no....10 of 10