Delhi District Court
Km. Mamta Goel vs The State on 13 April, 2012
IN THE COURT OF SH MAHESH CHANDER GUPTA :
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE - IV (OUTER DISTRICT) :
ROHINI : DELHI
CRIMINAL REVISION No. 7/10
Km. Mamta Goel
D/o Sh. Tej Prakash Goel
R/o D-14/169, Sector-3,
Rohini, New Delhi
.......Petitioner.
Versus
The State
(The Govt. of NCT of Delhi)
.......Respondent
Order reserved on : 07.04.2012
Order announced on : 13.04.2012.
1/10
ORDER
1 This criminal revision petition Under Section 397 Cr. PC read with Section 399 Cr. PC filed by the petitioner takes exception to the order dated 07.05.2010 passed by the court of Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate, Rohini Courts, Delhi arising out of the case FIR No. 1802/06 registered at P.S. Sultan Puri, U/S 120-B/354/452/506 IPC, titled State Vs. Subodh Tyagi and Anr., whereby charge U/S 120-B IPC, U/S 452/506/120-B IPC was framed against the accused Subodh Tyagi and the petitioner/accused Mamta Goel by the Ld. trial court.
2 Briefly stated the facts giving rise to the filing of the present revision are that complainant Smt. Radha lodged a complaint with the police of PS Sultan Puri that on 13.11.2006 at her house she was assaulted and her modesty was outraged by accused Subodh Tyagi and she was also threatened by him to kill if she lodged the complaint with the police and did not accede to the proposal for divorcing her husband so that her husband could marry the petitioner/accused Mamta Goel. It has further been alleged that accused Subodh Tyagi did the said act in criminal conspiracy with the 2/10 petitioner/accused Mamta Goel. On the said complaint of the complainant Smt. Radha, a case was registered by the police of police station Sultan Puri vide FIR No. 1802/06. After completion of investigation a charge-sheet for the offences U/S 120-B/354/452/506 IPC was filed against accused Subodh Tyagi and the petitioner/accused Mamta Goel in the court. After hearing on charge Ld. trial court on 07.05.2010 finding that prima facie a case U/S 120-B IPC, U/S 452/506/120-B IPC against accused Subodh Tyagi and the petitioner/accused Mamta Goel and that prima facie a case U/s 354 IPC is also made out against accused Subodh Tyagi, framed the charges accordingly which were read over and explained to the accused Subodh Tyagi and the petitioner/accused Mamta Goel to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. It is against the said order dated 7.5.2010 the present revision petition has been filed.
3 After filing of the revision, notice of revision was given to the respondent/State and the trial court record was also summoned. 4 Ld. counsel for the petitioner Mamta Goel submitted that the impugned order dated 07.05.2010 is against the facts and circumstances and 3/10 settled law. The statement of complainant Smt. Radha does not disclose the specific allegations against the petitioner and the allegations as alleged does not constitute the ingredients of any offences. As per the material on record and investigation there is no allegation against the petitioner regarding the offence of criminal house trespass and for outraging the modesty of any women. There is no offence to prove that accused Subodh Tyagi and petitioner/accused Mamta Goel entered into criminal conspiracy to commit any offence. As per the allegation on record the complainant alleged only that petitioner/accused Mamta Goel threatened the complainant on 11.11.2006 at telephone in the evening time but the IO did not investigate/inquired this fact that from which phone number the call was made or at which phone number it was received. There is no evidence to prove the said allegation of complainant nor the complainant complained this matter either on the relevant day i.e. 11.11.2006 or 12.11.2006. The Ld. trial court ignored this fact and framed the charge for the offence U/S 506 IPC against the petitioner/accused. He further submitted that the impugned order is silent and is not a speaking order as it does not disclose the submission of the petitioner and the allegations of the complainant. He further submitted as per the prosecution story it is admitted fact that accused Subodh Tyagi, 4/10 petitioner/accused Mamta Goel and Vijender (husband of the complainant) were working in one company together and they all were well known alongwith their family members. The husband of the complainant Sh. Vijender was having lustful intention towards the petitioner/accused Mamta Goel and he was blackmailing her. The petitioner/accused Mamta Goel complained the matter to his colleagues as well as Subodh Tyagi. As a result Sh. Vijender husband of the complainant felt sorry for his lustful bad intention and same was reduced in writing on 11.09.2006 in his own writing in the presence of Subodh Tyagi. So being having revengeful intention and inconnivance with the complainant, both the accused Subodh Tyagi and the petitioner/accused Mamta Goel have been falsely implicated in this case and the Ld. trial court ignored this fact and passed the impugned order which is liable to be set aside.
5 Ld. APP for the respondent/state, on other hand supported the order of the Ld. trial court and submitted that it does not suffer from any infirmity or illegality which calls for any interference. As such the revision petition deserves to be dismissed.
5/10 6 I have heard Ld. Counsel for the petitioner/accused Mamta Goel and Ld. APP for the respondent/state and have also carefully perused the entire record.
7 Undisputably, accused Subodh Tyagi has not filed any revision petition against the impugned order dated 07.05.2010. 8 The whole case of the prosecution hinges on the complaint dated 13.11.2008 made by the complainant Smt. Radha W/o Sh. Vijender Singh. It reads as under:-
" I live at H.No. 117, Pocket-3, Sector-23, Rohini, Delhi and is a house wife. My husband Vijender Singh works in ALDE Medi IMPEX LTD. K-33, Udyog Vihar Pira Gari, Delhi, a drug company. Today on 13.11.2006 my husband had gone to his work and my son Tanisk had gone to school, Subod Tyagi who works in the above company with my husband and who lives in Sector-21, Rohini, had already visited my house two or three times about one year ago with his wife, rang the call bell. I opened the door and on just opening the door; Subodh Tyagi by pushing me took inside the house and started rotating his hands on my breast and entwined (lipat) with me and started kissing and licking me and pushed me on a sofa. I cried and when he again tried to entwine with me, I by putting a hand on his mouth and pushing him saved my honour (izzat). Subodh Tyagi told that " your husband used to love a girl Mamta working in our factory. That Mamta wants to marry with your husband, you keep off from them (Beech Say Haat Jaa) and take divorce from Vijender or otherwise you and Mamta both live together. I have been sent by Mamta saying that either I get separate you 6/10 from Vijender or to forcibly make you agree to live together with Mamta after, getting Mamta married with Vijender. I had come for this work but my intention has turned evil on you and I started doing wrong activities with you ( lekin meri niyat tumharai uppar kharab ho gai aur tumharai saath galat harkat karnai laga)." When I told Subodh that he has not done good, I will report to the police then Subodh said that " if you report to the police or if you do not agree to live with Mamta, then I will kill you. I by moving fast (bhagkar) bolted the house and phoned at no.100. On 11.11.2006 in the evening time Mamta had threatened me by telephoning me that " if you do not take divorce from Vijender and becomes an obstacle between her and Vijender or (you) do not agree to live together then you will face the consequences very soon (tujhai jald hi iska maja mil jaaiga). I am sure that for sending Subod to me and for dishonouring me, has been done at the instance of Mamta. Action be taken against both of them."
9. Before I peruse the complaint of complainant Smt. Radha and the material on the record, let me examine as to what Sections 441, 442, 452, 506 and 120A IPC provides for.
Section 441 IPC defines criminal trespass. Section 442 IPC defines house trespass. Section 452 IPC provides for house trespass after preparation for hurt, assault and wrongful restraint. Section 503 IPC defines criminal intimidation and is punishable under section 506 IPC. Section 120A IPC defines criminal conspiracy and is punishable u/s 120B IPC. 7/10
Section 120A IPC reads as under:-
120A. Definition of criminal conspiracy.--When two or more persons agree to do, or cause to be done,--
(1) an illegal act, or
(2) an act which is not illegal by illegal means, such an
agreement is designated a criminal conspiracy.
Provided that no agreement except an agreement to commit an offence shall amount to a criminal conspiracy unless some act besides the agreement is done by one or more parties to such agreement in pursuance thereof.
Explanation.--It is immaterial whether the illegal act is the ultimate object of such agreement, or is merely incidental to that object.
10. From the careful perusal of the complaint of complainant as reproduced here-in-above and the material on the record, prima facie there is nothing to indicate that the alleged offences u/s 452/354/506 IPC committed by accused Subodh Tyagi, were committed in pursuance of any agreement between accused Subodh Tyagi and petitioner/accused Mamta nor prima facie there is anything to indicate that accused Subodh Tyagi and petitioner/accused Mamta agreed to do or caused to be done the offences u/s 452/354/506 IPC and in pursuance of that accused Subodh Tyagi committed the said offences.
8/10
11. It is the admitted case of the prosecution that petitioner/accused Mamta on the date of the alleged occurrence had not gone to the house of the complainant nor was present at the time of alleged committal of the offences u/s 452/354/506 IPC by accused Subodh Tyagi.
12. In the circumstances, prima facie there is no material on record to charge the petitioner/accused Mamta for the offences u/s 120B IPC, U/s 452/506/120B IPC.
13. No doubt at the stage of consideration of charge only prima facie view of whether offence is made out has to be taken and detailed in-depth analysis of evidence is not warranted but in the present case there is nothing on the record to suggest the complicity or involvement of the petitioner/accused Mamta for the offences charged. Further the fact that criminal conspiracies are usually proved by circumstantial evidence does not mean that mere allegation of being a party to the conspiracy is sufficient to draw a conclusion against any given accused. This allegation is to be prima facie substantiated with some other corroborative piece of evidence. 9/10 However, in the present case there is nothing on record to lend any prima facie corroboration to this allegation against the petitioner/accused Mamta.
14. In view of above discussion, the order dated 07.05.2010 passed by the Ld. Trial Court framing the charge against petitioner/accused Mamta Goel is set aside. The revision filed by the petitioner is, therefore, allowed. Petitioner/accused Mamta Goel is discharged for the offences U/S 120 B IPC, U/S 452/506/120B IPC. She is on bail. Her bail bond cancelled and surety stands discharged. Trial court record alongwith a copy of this order be sent back.
The criminal revision file be consigned to Record room.
Announced in the open Court (MAHESH CHANDER GUPTA)
on 13th Day of April, 2012 Additional Sessions Judge - IV (Outer).
Rohini, Delhi.
10/10