Delhi District Court
State vs Bhupinder Singh on 5 July, 2010
1
IN THE COURT OF MS. GEETANJLI GOEL:
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE : NEW DELHI.
STATE VS BHUPINDER SINGH
FIR NO. 537/2003
P.S. Tilak Marg
U/S 509 IPC
05.07.2010
JUDGMENT:
1.Srl. No. of the case & Date of institution 142/2 & 27.08.2004
2.Date of commission of offence 19.11.2003
3.Name of the complainant State through Ms. Saroj Bala (Advocate)
4.Name of the accused 1. Bhupinder Singh (Advocate) Chamber No. 928, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi.
2. Sanjeev Kumar (Dropped) (Advocate) Chamber No. 935, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi.
3. S.K. Solanki (Dropped) (Advocate) Chamber No. 931, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi.
5. Nature of offence complained of U/s 509 IPC
6.Plea of the accused person Accused pleaded not guilty
7. Date reserved for order 05.07.2010
8.Final Order Acquitted
9.Date of such order 05.07.2010 BRIEF STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR DECISION OF THE CASE:
1. Accused Bhupender Singh was challaned by PS Tilak Marg for the offence under Section 509 IPC on the allegations that on 19.11.2003 at Chamber No. 929, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi, he uttered harsh 2 words to the complainant Ms. Saroj Bala and also gave abuses to her in filthy language with intention to outrage her modesty.
2. After supply of copies under Section 207 Cr.P.C. notice under Section 251 Cr.P.C. for the offence under Section 509 IPC was served on the accused Bhupender vide order dated 3.11.2009 to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Earlier notice was served on 18.9.2008 but the same was amended vide order dated 3.11.2009. The accused had gone in revision but the revision petition was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 9.2.2009 of the learned ASJ. Proceedings against the accused Sanjeev Kumar and S.K. Solanki were dropped vide order dt. 18.9.2008. It may be mentioned that the complainant had moved an application for directions to IO/ SHO to collect necessary documents but the same was dismissed vide order dated 16.5.2008. An application was filed by the prosecution to summon certain witnesses but the same was dismissed vide order dated 12.8.2009. The complainant moved an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. for summoning various accused persons but the said application was dismissed vide order dated 16.3.2010. She moved another application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. for summoning herself but the same was dismissed vide order dated 16.3.2010. The complainant also moved another application under Section 91 Cr.P.C. for summoning the record but the same was dismissed vide order dated 16.3.2010. Thereafter the complainant went in revision against the order dated 16.3.2010 dismissing the three applications but the said revision was dismissed by the order of learned ASJ dated 5.6.2010. The complainant also went in revision petition before Hon'ble 3 HC against order of Ld. ASJ but said revision petition was also dismissed.
Thereaftr the complainant moved a petition under Articles 227 of the constitution challenging various orders and same was stated to be pending. However no stay was granted therein. The complainant also moved an application u/s 216 Cr P.C stating that accused person(s) was/are liable to be charged for offence u/s 354/506/448/452/504/120- B/34.
3. The prosecution in support of its case has examined 4 witnesses.
PW1 HC Onkar Mal proved the copy of FIR Ex.PW1/A. He stated that after the registration of the case, he handed over the copy of FIR and rukka to SI Arun Kumar for investigation.
PW2 Ms. Saroj Bala is the complainant in the present case. PW3 SI Arun Chouhan deposed that on 19.11.2003 he was present at PS Tilak Marg. The investigation was handed over to him after registration of FIR by DO. The complainant Saroj Bala was present in PS and SHO introduced her to him. He along with complainant went to Chamber No.929, Patiala House Courts for site inspection. He prepared the site plan Ex.PW3/A at the instance of the complainant (site plan was dated 12.12.2003 and not 19.11.2003). She had stated that lawyers in chambers No.928 and 930 misbehaved with her but no lawyer was present in either of the chambers at that time. He tried to enquire from other Advocates but being a case of Advocates none wanted to intervene. Complainant told that earlier also she had made complaints in 4 the said regard in Bar Council. He stated that he met Shri Madan Lal and Shri Wadhwa to find out about the same who accepted that there was a dispute between the parties and earlier also complaints were received and matter was got compromised between the parties. Complainant had stated that accused had induced Surya Prakash, typist to lodge a complaint of theft against her. He was examined and he stated that he had made the complaint inadvertently and later he had received his payment. Thereafter PW3 was transferred.
PW4 SI Raj Kumar deposed that during last of December, 2003 or starting of January, 2004, he was posted as SI at PS Tilak Marg. The investigation of the present case was handed over to him by SI Arun Chuahan. During investigation, he met complainant Saroj Bala in her chamber. Complainant Saroj Bala handed over to him photocopies of some documents which were seized by him vide seizure memo Ex.PW4/A. He stated that the documents mainly contain the complaint to Delhi Bar Association, SHO PS Tilak Marg and affidavits of typist Surya Prakash Mishra etc. Seized documents are marked as M1, M2, M3, M4, M5, M6 (containing 13 pages from (i) to (xiii), M7, M8, M9, M10, M11, M12 (containing 16 pages from (i) to (xvi), M13 (containing 3 pages from (i) to
(iii), M14 (containing 3 pages (i) to (iii), M15 (containing 2 pages from page i to ii). He stated that he examined many people regarding the incident. He stated that the complainant Saroj Bal remained with him but none agreed to be witness as they all belonged to the same profession i.e. Advocates. He examined the seized document and after that he filed a charge sheet.
5
4. After prosecution evidence was led statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. wherein all the incriminating material existing on record including exhibited documents were put to the accused to which the stand of the accused was of general denial. He stated that he had not uttered harsh words or abuses in filthy language to outrage the modesty of complainant. He stated that it is a false and fabricated complaint just to hide wrongs of the complainant herself. He stated that the complainant is habitual of making false and fabricated complaints against all the persons in her neighbourhood to whom she had created trouble in one way or the other by constructing a chamber illegally. He stated that all the complaints made by the complainant are false and fabricated and he did not know to whom or before which forum she had made complaints. He stated that it is a false case. He stated that the complainant had converted the open space No. 929, B.S. Mehta Lane into a chamber illegally and without taking proper care regarding the safety and convenience of the neighbouring chambers. He stated that the complainant wanted to shift attention of concerned authorities from the real issue of construction of chamber illegally and without proper permission. He stated that he is innocent and had been falsely implicated in the present case.
The accused further stated that he is practicing advocate in Patiala House Courts since 1995 and had cordial relations with all colleagues including female colleagues. Complainant purchased the open space and converted it into a chamber by using his wall and wall of 6 Mr. Dandapani, Advocate. Complainant put all the load of the roof of her chamber on the said two walls which caused lots of damage to the roof of his chamber and chamber of Mr. Dandapani which caused seepage into both the chambers which spoilt all the wooden work, books, electric fitting and all the articles in both the chambers. She also constructed the chamber in such a manner which caused inconvenience to the chamber of Sanjeev and Satish Solanki and other persons in the neighbourhood. When they all advocates brought the mis-deed and mischief to the knowledge of the Bar Association, NDBA which is the parental body of the Advocates, then all the problems were started and the complainant started to create scenes and shouted at the top of her pitch in presence of clients, advocates, friends etc. and made false and fabricated complaints against the said advocates and was even habitual of calling 100 number at PCR. All the said acts and complaints and the present complaint was filed by the complainant just to harass him and the advocates so that she could shift the real issue of the dispute into a personal matter or dispute and to jeopardize his career and lower down his esteem in the estimation of his fellow advocates, clients and friends. Since the beginning of his career he had no dispute with his fellow advocates including female advocates and he was enjoying a very good reputation and the said complaint caused him a great loss and lowered down his esteem in the society. He stated that he is innocent.
5. The accused stated that he wanted to lead evidence in defence and produced Shri A.V. Gopi, Advocate, Chamber No.924, Patiala House Courts as DW1 who deposed that on 19.11.2003 he had 7 come to court. As far as he remembered in the afternoon some police officer came to their area and especially he came to his chamber and enquired if some incident had taken place. He stated that there was no incident which had happened about some dispute between the accused Mr. Bhupinder and the complainant Ms. Saroj Bala. IO recorded his statement and of Mr. Baweja and one more person in his chamber. He also signed his statement. After that once or twice IO again came and enquired from him. He stated that he and accused started practice together in 1996. He stated that he behaved very well with all persons and he had good relations with his neighbours and his character antecedents were very good.
6. I have heard the learned APP for state and the accused in person. The complainant did not argue the matter despite opportunities and last opportunity and she was even granted time to file written submissions but she chse not to do so despite opportunities and only moved application for adjournment. The matter was only briefly argued by Ld. Counsel for complainant. The learned APP has argued that from the material on record the offence is made out against the accused. Written submissions were also filed by Ld APP which I have perused.
7. On an appreciation of the evidence the material witness in the present case is PW2 Ms. Saroj Bala. PW2 deposed that on 19.11.2003 she was putting a keel in her chamber No.929, Patiala House in order to hang a curtain. Advocate Bhupinder came into her chamber and asked her to stop the 'thak, thak' and why she was making noise and otherwise she 8 would get a slap and he called her 'haramzadi'. She stated that he was not letting her sit peacefully in the chamber. After saying the same the accused went into his chamber and Solanki also went into the chamber of the accused Bhupinder. She saw that there were 3-4 other Advocates sitting in the chamber of accused whose names she did not know. She made a complaint on 100 number. PCR van came and she told everything. She pointed out accused to PCR officials and accused told them to meet Shri Madan Lal and asked his munshi Ram Narain to take police officials to Shri Ram Narain. The accused went into chamber of Sanjeev. The chamber of Sanjeev was opposite hers and across the park was chamber of Shri Madan Lal. Accused Bhupinder called Shri Madan Lal from the window of chamber of Shri Sanjeev and asked police officials to speak to Mr. Madan Lal saying he was coming. She asked PCR officials to write her complaint and what they would do by meeting Shri Madan Lal. PCR officials said they would write her complaint on which accused shouted and stated that they could do what they wanted. She told PCR officials to see how he was behaving with them and that he used to misbehave with her and in past also had fought with her together with Solanki and Sanjeev and everytime Bar members were called and matter got compromised and even that day he wanted to do the same and as such had called Shri Madan Lal. One Jai Ram, staff member of Bar Association called from window of chamber of Sanjeev that Shri Madan Lal was coming. Jai Ram asked PCR officials to speak to Shri Madan Lal and that Shri Madan Lal was calling them. She along with PCR officials went to the chamber of Shri Sanjeev and from window asked Shri Madan Lal if she could not put a nail in her chamber and if she put a nail would 9 the accused abuse her. Shri Madan Lal did not respond to what she said. There were 3-4 other lawyers also standing there. Shri Madan Lal asked PCR officials to come and speak to him. PCR officials said that they were from PCR and when 'bade saab' comes from PS he should speak to them. Shri Madan Lal asked them to send 'bade saab' when he came to his chamber.
PW2 stated that after sometime police person came and she told him everything and handed over a written complaint Ex.PW2/A. In the evening of 19th itself she gave a copy of the complaint to the DCP which is Ex.PW2/B. On 20th she went to PS to find out what had happened because even earlier on 13.7.2003 she had given a complaint on which no action was taken. Said complaint is Ex.PW2/C. She stated that she was handed over copy of FIR. She had purchased the said chamber in 2002 and there was very little space in front of her chamber. Opposite to her chamber was chamber of Sanjeev, next to her chamber was chamber of accused and next to chamber of Sanjeev was chamber of Solanki. She stated that there was a lot of filth there and she got everything cleaned and started her practice. She stated that the advocates, friends and clients of accused used to come there and spit. She requested them to maintain cleanliness but they used to make fun of her. One day client of Solanki had spat there and she asked him not to do so and to prevent the same in future put a broken table there. Advocate Solanki came outside and she asked him to stop his client from spitting. Instead of stopping his client he asked her to remove her table. Solanki had also tied a broken chair by lock to the grill of the park. She asked him to remove the chair 10 but he refused and stated that the same would remain there. When she got cleanliness done there was a window lying there and on that day Solanki asked his munshi to put window in his chamber and she stated that same was found when she had got the place cleaned. On this he said if some things are lying in his chamber they would not become his and if four persons came to his chamber would they also become his. She stated that she tried to stop filth but it had no effect on the accused. She tried to give complaint but Shri Avdhesh Rana got the matter compromised that no one would spread filth and they should both remove their things.
PW2 stated that she put her table near the grill in front of her Chamber so that no one should spit outside her chamber and in the park. When she was objecting to the client of Adv. Solanki, Adv. Solanki came out of his Chamber and she told him that his client is spitting outside her chamber but Mr. Solanki told her to remove her table from outside the Chamber. One broken chair was also lying there belonging to Solanki. She stated that she requested him to remove the chair but he insisted that the chair would remain there. She stated that after the compromise one common dustbin was lying in front of the Chamber of Sanjeev where one client spitted again. On her objection Bhupender came outside and told her that the dustbin would remain at the same place and the garbage would also remain as it was. He also told that they were spitting in front of the Chamber of Mr. Sanjeev and not inside her chamber. He told her that what could she do. On this she threw away the dustbin in a fit of anger. Accused Bhupinder asked his clerk to bring the dustbin and 11 spit in the chamber, table, chair and even on the Madam/ her. At the same time Avnish Rana came and got the matter compromised between them.
PW2 further deposed that again one day the client of Sanjeev spat outside her Chamber and she put her chair in order to save garbage outside her chamber. Sanjeev came and asked her to remove the chair as when the clients came they would spit also. Sanjeev called Bhupinder who came with Solanki and all the three came to her Chamber. Bhupinder told her to remove the chair and threatened her that he is a very bad person and ''you don't know me''. Vice President Pradeep Gaur came there and he got the matter compromised between them and he got put up one ply board at the grill to protect the garbage or spitting of public. She removed her chair accordingly. One day Mr. Avnish Rana came to her chamber and told her to remove the ply-board from the grill and also to remove the pedestal fan which belonged to her. He told her that her neighbour Bhupinder, Solanki and Sanjeev had requested him to remove the pedestal fan and ply board as there was problem in passing of air. She refused to remove both the things. Next day she found the pedestal fan was lying on the road and wires had been removed and after some days, she found that the ply board had also been removed and was lying downward on the grill. She lodged a complaint with Pradeep Gaur who told her to pay attention on her work instead of wasting time on such matters.
PW2 stated that on 26.6.2003 on the first day after the summer 12 vacations, mason and labourer were working inside her chamber, at the same time, Sanjeev, Solanki and Bhupinder came to her chamber and quarreled with her. They told her to remove the wall under the window of her Chamber as the same was outside the Chamber. She told them that the same was not outside her Chamber. They told the mason and labourer to remove the wall first otherwise they would be beaten. They told that they would get the chamber of Madam demolished. On 02.7.2003 Sanjeev, Bhupinder, S.B. Dandapani and one Typist Surya Prakash Mish gave false complaint against her in NDBA. The typist gave complaint regarding theft of his chair. All the four complaints are Mark A1 to A4. On the said complaints, Bar Association sealed her Chamber and one notice dated 03.7.2003 was pasted inside her Chamber. The notice is Mark B and they put another lock over her lock at the Chamber. The Bar clerk Jai Ram called her at her house and told that her chamber had been sealed on the aforesaid complaints on the order of the Secretary Wadhwa and requested her to meet the Secretary the next day. She took the photographs of sealing of her Chamber. The same are Mark C-1 and C-2. The photograph Mark C-1 shows the wall outside her chamber which was disputed by the accused Bhupinder Singh. She accordingly took the photographs of the dustbin and the garbage outside her Chamber. The photographs are Mark D-1, Mark D-2, D-3 and D-4. Then she met Mr. Wadhwa at his Chamber. On her asking that merely on 3-4 false complaints, a Chamber of an Advocate can be sealed. He answered in the affirmative and he told that he could throw away the articles of any Advocate outside the Chamber and seal the same as he was empowered being a Secretary of NDBA and told her to attend the 13 meeting at 12 noon. She was directed by Mr. Wadhwa in the meeting that she should raise two walls on both sides of her Chamber even the same was common wall with Mr. Bhupender's Chamber and Mr. Dandapani and also told her to remove the door of her Chamber only then the seal of her chamber would be opened. Accused Bhupender told her that it was the first owner who had the right over the common wall instead of the person who purchased the Chamber later on. She objected to the same and laid her claim over the common wall but she was not heard. She told them that prior permission of the court was required for raising construction and the court would not give permission to her. On this Treasurer Manish told her to raise the wall inside the chamber ''chori-chori, do do int karke, within one week'' without obtaining permission from the court. They passed then order in the said regard and accordingly she signed the order of NDBA as she wanted de-sealing of her Chamber. In the said order she was told that she should not remove the door of her Chamber, the order is Mark E the same was signed by her and her sister.
PW2 deposed that on 09.7.2003 she was sitting inside her Chamber in the lunch hour, Bhupinder and Sanjeev washed their hands outside her Chamber and the water was flowing towards her side and their clients were spitting outside her Chamber. She ignored the same and closed the door of her chamber in order to avoid the same. After their washing of hands after 2-3 minutes, rain started. Accused Bhupinder came after sometime and opened the door of her Chamber in a rude manner and told her that due to the weight of her roof, the water was 14 seeping in his chamber and told her that she had been told to raise the wall within a week. He also told that then they would get her chamber demolished as they only got her chamber sealed till then. She objected that the seepage in his Chamber was not due to weight of roof of her Chamber and he was levelling false allegations against her. On this Bhupinder told that look Sanjeev, madam is again arguing now they would get her chamber demolished. She lodged a complaint Mark F (running into two pages). On 10.7.2003 she searched for the typist Surya Prakash Mish and she enquired from him regarding the theft of his table who apologized that he had filed a false complaint against her on the instance of Bhupinder. He gave her written apology on a Stamp paper and other documents Mark G1 to Mark G-6. On 13.7.2003 she gave complaint Ex.PW2/C at PS Tilak Marg but no action was taken.
PW2 stated that on 14.7.2003 she again gave a complaint Mark H (running into five pages) to NDBA and on the same day the NDBA organized a meeting and on asking of Mr. Manan she explained the whole incident to him regarding the mis-behaviour of accused Bhupinder, Sanjeev and Solanki who used to throw garbage outside her Chamber. When she objected to the same they used filthy language and mis- behaved with her. Mr. Manan told that they are very ''Sharif people'', what filthy word was used by them. On this she told that Bhupinder entered in her Chamber and threatened her that he is very bad man and she did not know him on which Mr. Manan told her in threatening words that ''kya aap mujhe jaanti hain,''. She told him that he is President of the Bar Association. And he further told her what else she knew about him. She repeated the same words again.
15
PW2 deposed that thereafter she told the whole incident to Mr. K.K. Manan, the then President of Bar Council. Thereafter Mr. Manan showed her the order dated 04.7.2003 and asked her ''yeh sign aapne kiye hai''. She told him that Mr. Wadha who was the Secretary at that time sealed her chamber without asking for her reply on the complaints of accused persons namely Bhupinder Singh, Sanjeev Kumar, S.B. Dandapani and one typist Mr. Surya Prakash Mishra. And Mr. Wadhwa forced her to construct a separate wall from rear side of S.B. Dandapani and left side of Mr. Bhupinder Singh inspite of the common wall then the seal of her chamber would be opened that is why she had signed the order dated 04.7.2003. On this Mr. Manan had threatened her that she was leveling allegations against the member of Executive board/Bar Council and the Executive Body had full power to seal the chamber without asking any reply and without giving any notice. He said that the Executive Body could seal the chamber and also could throw the articles of the chamber and said that ''hamare seal kiye hue chamber toh High Court bhi nahi khulwa saka hai''. She told him that that was the common wall and the said advocate had encroached the space of 2½ -3 inch space of her chamber. Mr. Manan again said ''daba li toh daba li yeh purani baat ho gaye hai'' and said to refer her matter to Bar Council of Delhi. She told him ''bhej dijye''. Mr. Manan again said ''soch lo, waha par bhi hum hi baithe hain, waha par bhi hume dekhna hain or yahan par bhi hume dekhna hain, and said sometime be given to us then we will think the matter will be sent to Bar Council or not".
16
PW2 stated that on 22.7.2003 she along with her sister went to the Chamber of Mr. Manan and again said entire thing to Mr. Manan. Thereafter Mr. Manan told her that there were cracks on the roof of Adv. Bhupinder and Adv. Dandapani and the water of her roof goes to their roof. She told him that there were no cracks in their roofs and no water goes to their roofs from her roof because level of her roof was higher than their roofs as well as the slope of her roof was towards the park and the said advocates were leveling false allegations against her. She told him that she would repair the cracks of their roof according to them and she told him that she would raise the level of her roof which was already high but whatever they had done with her as well as false complaints which had been given by the accused persons against her including theft of a table, Mr. Manan said ''unhe dabe rahne do warna badnam ho jaoge''. She again told him that ''aap (Member of Executive Body) logo ke kahne par hi toh aaj tak dabate aaye hoon'' as a result of which her chamber had been sealed without asking reply from her. Mr. Manan again told her that whether her matter be referred to Bar Council. She said ''bhej dijye, kyonki yahan toh aap sabhi ek ho jaate hain, wahan koina koi mere sun kar nayay karega, on this Mr. Manan said in a threatening way ''Yahan par hum sab ek ho jaate hain, wahan par hum pachish ke paschish ek ho jayenge''. On the same day in the evening, a meeting of Executive Body was convened and in the said meeting she was pressurized again that she should raise a separate wall of her chamber and change the door but she did not agree for the same. One Mr. Manish (Treasurer) said to her in a threatening way ''Madam ka chamber toh todna padega''. She told him that he should seal her chamber from the court. On this Mr. Wadhwa 17 said that if she would not raise the walls, then member of Executive Body would raise the same. On this Manish said that ''madam ko kaho ki aapne chhabi de, hum madam ke chamber ke andar deewar banayenge". Then she told him that she did not want to raise any wall of her chamber and they refer the matter to Bar Council.
PW2 stated that on 23.7.2003 when she reached her Chamber, she found a notice Mark I was put on the door of her Chamber. On the same day she gave her reply to the notice to Mr. R.K. Wadhwa and one copy to Ms. Kamini Lau, the then ACMM, New Delhi. Copy of reply is Mark J. On the next day i.e on 24.7.2003, she gave a written complaint to Ms. Kamini Lau, the Judge Incharge, ACMM, New Delhi. Same is Mark K. On the same day in the evening a meeting of the Executive Body was held in which she also participated and gave the same to Mr. Wadha (Secretary) which she had given to Ms. Kamini Lau. In the meeting they had pressurized her to erect a wall inside her chamber inspite of common wall and if she would not do the same they would erect the same. Mr. Pradeep Gaur, Vice President told her in threatening way why she had given complaint to Ms. Kamini Lau by saying that court would not do anything in the said matter as the matter pertained to the Bar. She had given a proposal to Mr. Wadhwa to save her chamber from being sealed by Executive Body/NDBA that she would raise the height of her roof by putting more badarpur and cement which was already high, on this Mr. Wadha said that if her proposal would be accepted by Mr. Bhupinder and Adv. Dandapani, then he would accept her proposal. Later Pradeep Gaur told that her proposal was not acceptable to Mr. Bhupinder and Mr. 18 Dandapani. Mr. Bhupinder told that he wanted a wall and Mr. Dandapani also told the same. Ms. Vasundhara, Member of Library told that due to one lady a lot of advocates who were sitting in the meeting were suffering. She told her that she was suffering from the said advocates since she purchased the said chamber. Mr. Pradeep Gaur told her that she had to construct the wall. She refused for the same. Adv. Bhupinder told that ''agar madam nahi maanti hain toh madam ka chamber phir se seal kiya jaye", and Dandapani told that Mr. Bhupinder is telling right. She told them that her matter be referred to Bar Council of Delhi on which Mr. Wadhwa told her by shouting and threatened her ''madam aap hamari baat na maan kar humari insult kar rahi hain, hum aapka chamber seal bhi kar sakte hain or tudwa bhi sakte hain, aapka matter Bar Council of Delhi toh kya, Bar Council of India mein bhi bhej denge, aur hum sabhi mil kar aapke against aisa jootha allegation laga kar bhej denge, jiske liye aapko sari zindgi loss uthana padga, aapka licence radd kar diya jayega, aap kahi practice nahi kar paayegi, aur executive board ke khilaf jaogi toh aapko hi loss uthana padega, aap akele pad jayengi, aap par koi yakin nahi karega, aur humare dwara band kiye gye chamber aaj tak bhi seal pade hain jinhe high court bhi nahi khulwa saka hain'', that is why she had signed the order dated 24.7.2003 even though without knowing the contents of the order.
PW2 testified that she had moved several applications dated 10.9.2003, 07.10.2003, 06.11.2003, 04.1.2005, letter dated 04.1.2005 was received on 04.2.2005 etc. for obtaining the copy of the said order dated 24.7.2003 but could not find the same. The original of the same was with 19 Bar Association, New Delhi. Copies of her letters are Mark K, Mark L, & Mark M, Mark N. She had also filed a complaint dated 17.12.2005 which was pending in the court of Shri Sudesh Kumar learned MM against accused Bhupinder Singh. In the said case she had filed many PF for calling the said order. The copy of the order is Ex. PW2/2 (dated 23.2.2008 to 2.11.2008). PW2 stated that on 24.7.2003, in the meeting of Executive Body, Mr. S.B. Dandapani said to Secretary R.K. Wadhawa that 'Madam ki chhat ke level tod ker uska level hamari chhato se neeche kiya jaye'. Then she said, 'waha par sabhi ke chamber ki chhate unchi-neechi bani hui hai'. Advocate Bhupinder said to Mr. Wadhawa, ' madam apni complaints jo thane mai di hai wapis le '. Then she said, ' agar ye written mai mujhse mafi mangte hai to mai complaint wapis le lungi'. Then Mr. Bhupinder said, ' hum madam ki di hui complaint se darne wali nahi hai' and advocate Mr. Sanjeev said, ' chahe to 50 complaint aur de kar aaye', then advocate Solanki said, ' chahe to roz dekar aaye, hamara kya bigad legi'. Then advocate Bhupinder said, 'agar madam nahi manti hai to madam ka chamber phir se seal kiya jaye' and advocate Dandapani also said the same. On 6.8.2003, she was not well because of which she did not come in the court. Then, a member of NDBA staff namely Mr. Jairam called her and said, 'madam, please come to the court today and today itself we have to start making wall in your chamber'. Then she came to the court and met Jairam in the office. Then Jairam said, 'hamare pass court ki permission hai aur hame aaj hi apke chamber mai diwar banani hai, agar aap apne chamber ki chabi nahi dengi to hum chamber ka taala tod kar banayenge'. Jairam said the same to members of office staff namely Pawan and Tejwir. Then they broke the lock of her 20 chamber and started construction of wall in her chamber. They threw the chair, tables and all other articles of her chamber in the park. The photograph of making wall by the Mistri in the chamber is mark PW2/O. Advocates Solanki, Bhupinder, Sanjeev, S.B. Dandapani were going inside her chamber and giving instructions to 'Mistri' who was making the wall. She was standing in front of her chamber in the park. Advocates Solanki, Bhupinder, Sanjeev,S.B. Dandapani were washing there hands and gargling in front of her chamber by showing her and laughing on this that she could not do anything to stop them. After that, Jairam brought an old iron pipe and directed to 'Mistri' to put it in her chamber's roof. When she asked Jairam, 'why are you putting it in roof", he replied that Bhupinder had sent this to put it in her chamber's roof. Jairam also said to Mistri, 'Why are you wasting time on measuring the wall again and again, just make it like anything.' Then she said to Jairam, 'agar aise hi bina nape diwar banaoge to kal ko yeh mere upar hi gir jayegi'. Then Jairam said, 'humne to bina nape diwar banwa kar buildings khadi karwa di hai, jab wo nahi giri to ye kaise gir jayegi aur hamare kam ke beech mai aap mat bolo'. Then she went to park and sat there on her chair. Thereafter a person came there and said to her that he had come from Ms. Kamini Lau, then judge in-charge's court and asked her that did she have the permission of making the said wall in her chamber? Then she replied that she was not making the wall, Bar/Executive body was making the said wall and they said that they had the permission. Then that person said to her that if she did not have permission, her chamber would be sealed by the court and to please meet Madam Ms. Kamini Lau. Then she went to Vice President Mr. Pradeep Gaur's chamber to take the permission letter of court from 21 him. There Secretary Wadhwa and Addl. Secretary Avnish Rana were sitting. On asking the permission letter of the court, Mr. Avnish Rana said to her, 'Don't worry, nobody will seal your chamber, we have the permission letter and we will show it to anyone.' Thereafter, Jairam put his all building material in her chamber and her chamber articles as well and locked the chamber by his own lock by saying, '3-4 din ya kam khatam hone tak hamara hi taala lagega apke chamber per aur baki kam kal hoga.' The photograph of the same is Mark PW2/P. PW2 deposed that on 7.8.2003, Ms. Kamini Lau sealed her chamber due to the said construction work. The photograph is Mark PW2/Q. When she reached her chamber on 23.7.2003, the notice of Executive Body was affixed on her chamber door dated 22.7.2003. The photograph of same is Mark PW2/J1. Thereafter, she went to Pradeep Gaur and asked him, 'aap to keh rahe the ki aap ke pass permission hai to mera chamber kyo seal hua aur usee khulwaye', then he replied by threatening her, 'apne Ms. Kamini Lau ko hamari complaint kyo kari?', then she asked Mr. Rana, Addl. Secretary, 'aap to keh rahe the ki chamber seal nahi hoga aur hamare pass permission hai hum dikha denge, to phir ye kyo hua, ab ise wo permission dikha ke khulwaye'. Even he replied in a threatening way and said, 'apne Ms. Kamini Lau ko complaint hamare against complaint kyo di, ab yeh kabhi nahi khulega'. Then she said, 'yeh aap sabhi logo ki saazish thi mera chamber seal karane ki aur mujhe chamber se bahar karne ki'. On 10.9.2003, she wrote a complaint against them to the learned Judge-in-charge Mr. A. K. Sarpal. The photocopy of the same is Mark PW2/R consisting of 59 pages 22 (from page 10 to 68). On 15.9.2003 she gave a copy of the said complaint to the Bar Council of Delhi and Hon'ble the Chief Justice of High Court of Delhi and Hon'ble the Chief Justice of Supreme Court of India. The photocopy of the receipts are Mark PW2/S, PW2/T and PW2/U. On 25.9.2003, a copy of the same complaint was given to the then learned District & Session Judge Shri J.P. Singh in the morning. The photocopy of the receiving is Mark PW2/V. On the same date, after lunch, she went to meet the learned Judge-In charge Mr. A.K. Sarpal and asked him about her complaint dated 10.9.2003, then he replied, 'please give an undertaking stating that neither you nor Executive Body/NDBA will do any illegal construction in your chamber and you will demolish the wall which was constructed by the executive body at your own cost.' The photocopy of the undertaking dated 25.9.2003 is Mark PW2/W. She filed a reply of the said undertaking on 25.9.2003 and the clarification of reply was filed on 26.9.2003. The photocopies of the same are Mark PW2/X and PW2/Y. PW2 further stated that on 1.10.2003, she was told by a caretaker of learned Judge-In charge that the orders of opening of her chamber's seal had been passed by the learned Judge-In charge and gave her the order dated 30.9.2003. The photocopy of the same is Mark PW2/Z and he also told her to demolish the wall within 8 days from the said order. On 1.10.2003, her chamber was unsealed by the caretaker of the learned Judge-In charge in the evening. During the court holidays from 2.10.2003 to 5.10.2003, she demolished the wall and repaired her chamber on her cost. The photographs of demolishing and repairing of wall, her articles which were lying in the chamber along with broken lock, 23 tubelight, 'chhaini-hathoda' by which the lock was broken are Mark PW2/Z1-12. On 6.10.2003, Advocates Bhupinder, Solanki, S.B. Dandapani & Sanjeev came to her chamber and S.B. Dandapani asked her, 'aapne Bar ki banayi hui diwar kyo todi?' She replied to them that she demolished the illegal wall by the order of learned Judge-In charge Sh. A.K. Sarpal. Then Mr. Dandapni said, 'ye A.K. Sarpal kaun hota hai hamare mamle mai interfere karne wala', and Advocate Bhupinder said, 'aap phir se diwar banayengi nahi to hum phir se apke khilaf complaint denge aur apka chamber phir se seal karayenge Bar/Executive Body se.' On 7.10.2003, when she reached her chamber, she saw a threatening notice dated 6.10.2003 pasted on her chamber's door stating that there was meeting of Executive Body at 3.30 on the basis of complaint of Advocates Dandapani, Bhupinder, Sanjeev, Salanki. The photocopy and photograph of the same are Mark PW2/Z13 and PW2/Z14. On 7.10.2003 she wrote an application to the Secretary of Executive Body for taking copy of order of dated 24.7.2003 of the Executive Body. The photocopy of the same is Mark PW2/Z15. Thereafter, she along with her advocate sister went to Secretary Madan Lal's chamber to know about the notice. In the meanwhile, staff clerk Ramesh came there with the said application dated 7.10.2003 and said to Madan Lal, 'Madam order dated 24.7.2003 ki copy maang rahi hai'. Then Mr. Madan Lal threw the application on her by saying that no copy would be given and said in a threatening way, 'aap Bar/Executive Body ke against complaint deti hai'. Then she said to him, 'copy kyo nahi milegi'. Then he replied, ' jo kehna hai meeting mai aakar kehna'. When she along with her Advocate sister went to the meeting, Advocate Dandapani said to President Santosh Mishra that 24 Madam would sit alone in the meeting, send her sister outside. Then she said, 'my sister will sit quietly and will not say a word'. On this condition they made her sit in the meeting. Then Mr. Madan Lal said to her that they had received a complaint from 4 advocates against her and she would make the wall in her chamber and would change the door. Then she said that there was a common wall in her chamber and she would not make any wall. Previously an illegal wall was made by the Executive Body in the chamber despite the common wall and due to that the court sealed her chamber. Then in a threatening way Mr. Madan Lal said, ' aap Executive Body aur advocates ke against kai jagah complaint di hai'. Then she told everything to them. Then president Ms. Santosh Mishra said to her, ' un sab baato ke liye inse sorry bulwa denge aur aap apne chamber me dubara se diwar banayengi', then she said, ' maine pehle bhi kai bar in logo ke sorry bolne par aur executive body ke member ke kehne par maine inke sath compromise kiya hai aur inhe maaf bhi kiya hai par in logo ka conduct hamesha se waisa hi raha hai aur iska result ye nikla ki inhone mujh par table chori ka jhoota ilzam lagaya ek typist dwara meri reputation kharab karne ke liye court me aur mere against jhooti complaint dete hai khud bhi, jiske aadhar par mera chamber bina mujhse reply mange mera chamber seal kar diya aur bad me court se bhi seal kara diya aur ab mai koi illegal wall nahi banaungi aur ye kehte hue maine unhe court ka order dated 25.9.2003/26.9.2003 dikhaya.' After seeing that order, Ms. Santosh Mishra said, ' hamare liye is court ke order ki koi value nahi hai'. They said that the said order mattered a lot to them and they came out of the meeting. On 18.10.2003, she filed an application to take out a copy of the advocate's complaint dated 25 6.10.2003. The photocopy of the same is Mark PW2/Z16.
PW2 testified that on 3.11.2003, she was sitting in her chamber at around 4.30 PM, then advocate Solanki came and shut the door of her chamber in anger. He did the same many times in the past but she ignored. But that day, when she asked him why he did that he started quarreling with her saying, 'mai to is darwaje ko aise hi band karunga, mai is darwaje ko tod ke phek dunga, hum apne aage se tumhe aane-jane nahi denge, tum jitne chilla sakti ho chilla lo, jaha complaint deni hai de do, hamare upar kuch farak padne wala nahi hai'. Then she called the police at 100 No. at around 5.00 PM but nobody came till 6.00 PM. Next day on 4.11.2003, a policeman came to her in the morning around 11.00 a.m. He told her that they did come the day before but they did not find her chamber and by the time they got to her chamber around 6.30 PM, she had already left and the chamber was locked. Then she gave him a written complaint. The photocopy of the same is Mark PW2/Z17. On 6.11.2003 she went to learned Judge-In charge Mr. A.K. Sarpal to give an application for permission to start wood work in her chamber. The photocopy of the same is Mark PW2/Z18. On the same day, she went to Bar office to enquire about taking the copy of the complaint dated 6.10.2003 and copy of order dated 24.7.2003. Office staff Mr. Dulare said to her, 'We did not receive the order of giving copy to you from executive body and we had sent the office staff Ramesh to Mr. Bhaskar to enquire about the copy. When she went to the office of NDBA to give the said application and complaint dated 13.11.2003, the office staff Clerk Mr. Dulare said to her ''Madam aap ki complaint or application lene ke liye 26 Sachiv Madan Lal ji ne mana kiya hai, kaha hai ki madam ki koi bhi application or complaint na li jaaye''. Then she again gave an application regarding the same to President Santosh Mishra that ''mujhe kaaran bataya jaaye mere complaint or application na lene ka''.
PW2 stated that on that day she had brought original receiving copy of complaint dated 10.7.2003, the same is Ex.PW2/1 which is already mark F dated 13.10.2008, original receiving copy of written apology on a stamp paper dated 11-7-2003 which is Ex.PW2/2, which had been already marked G1 dated 13.10.2008, original receiving copy of false complaint of theft which is Ex.PW2/3 which had been already marked G2 dated 13.10.2008, original receiving copy of complaint dated 14.7.2003, the same is Ex.PW2/4, which had been already marked H dated 13.10.2008, original written apology regarding the said false theft complaint dated 14.7.2003, same is Ex.PW2/5, which had been already marked G6 dated 13.10.2008, original hand written apology dated 11.7.2003 of the typist, the same is Ex.PW2/6, which had been already marked G3 dated 13.10.2008, original notice issued by the NDBA for 'handover vacant and peaceful possession of chamber No. 929 to the Bar Association' dated 22.7.2003, the same is Ex.PW2/7, which had been already marked I dated 31.1.2009; original receiving copy of reply dated 23.7.2003 given by the complainant of the said notice, the same is Ex.PW2/8, which had been already marked J, original receiving copy of application dated 10.9.2003 given by the complainant for taking the order of NDBA/executive body dated 24.7.2003, the same is Ex.PW2/9 which had been already marked L dated 31.1.2009, original application of dated 7.10.2003 for taking the order of 27 NDBA/executive body dated 24.7.2003, the same is Ex.PW2/10, which had been already marked M dated 31.1.2009 as well as mark PW2/Z14 dated 25.2.2009, original receiving copy of application dated 18.10.2003 for taking the copy of complaints dated 6.10.2003 given by the Advocate Bhupinder Singh, Advocate Sanjeev Kumar, Advocate S. K. Solanki and Advocate S. K. Dandapani against the complainant from NDBA/executive body, the same is Ex.PW2/11, which had been already marked PW2/Z16 dated 25.2.2009, original application for taking the order dated 24.7.2003 and complaints given by the accused persons dated 6.10.2003, the same is Ex.PW2/12, which had been already marked N dated 31.1.2009, marked PW2/Z19 dated 25.2.2009 and marked PW2/Z20 dated 25.2.2009, the original receipt of the Bar Council of Delhi of complaint No.66/03 dated 15.9.2003, the same is Ex.PW2/13 which had been already marked PW2/S dated 25.2.2009, original postal receipt of complaint dated 10.9.2009 as well as 15.9.2003, the same is Ex.PW2/14, which had been already marked PW2/T & U dated 25.2.2009, original receiving copy of complaint dated 10.9.2003 to the Learned District Judge of Tis Hazari given by the complainant, the same is Ex.PW2/15, which had been already marked PW2/L dated 25.2.2009, original copy of undertaking regarding removal of seal of chamber 929 at Patiala House Courts given by the learned Judge-In charge Sh. A.K. Sarpal dated 17.9.2003 and 25.9.2003 for taking the undertaking by the complainant, the same is Ex.PW2/16, which had been already marked PW2/W dated 25.2.2009, original undertaking/reply of the said undertaking dated 25.9.2003, the same is Ex.PW2/17 as well as PW2/18, which had been already marked X and Y. 28 PW2 stated that on 13.11.2003 she went to the chamber of President of NDBA Santosh Mishra for giving an application for taking permission for wood work, one complaint was regarding telling the reason for not taking her complaint application for wood work and another complaint was for removal of calendar of Gods from the front grill of her chamber. Mrs. Santosh Mishra was not there, then she went to Vice President of NDBA Mr. Karan Singh but he did not take her complaints and application. Thereafter she met the member of library Ms. Anju Dixit, she told her entire facts, after that she took her complaints and application by saying that she would give it in the office. Both complaints are Ex.PW2/19 and 20 and application is Ex.PW2/21. PW2 stated that on 19.11.2003, Advocate Bhupinder came to her chamber and abused her. On that she made a call to 100 No. and lodged an FIR No.537/2003 in PS Tilak Marg u/s 509 IPC. FIR is Ex.PW1/A dated 13.10.2008. On 6.12.2003 she went to the then care taker of learned Judge In charge Shri A.K. Sarpal, Ld. MM for enquiring about wood-work application dated 6.11.2003. Then one official of care taking branch told her that she had to give another application to the Bar Office for wood-work, then it would come to them from there. Thereafter, on 6.12.2003 she went to give application in the Bar office. There she met Mr. Jairam and Mr. Dulare. Jairam told her that he used to take letters only when there was collection of about ten letters not a single letter and Mr. Dulare told her that Sachiv ji has asked him not to take any letter of hers. Then she told him that her application had already reached his office. Thereafter, Dulare told her even then he would not send her letter to the care taker office. She herself went to the office of 29 care taker. Care taker told her that Judge Saheb had directed him to give the said order to her and take the same to the office. Same is Ex.PW2/1. Then she went along with the copy of order even then they refused to take the same. Thereafter she met Member of library Ms. Anju Dixit and she also refused to take application and told that Madam Santosh Mishra told her why she had taken application and complaint of Sarojbala and attached the same with the office file and he had no power to receive the same and henceforth, she shall not receive any complaint and application of Sarojbala.
PW2 testified that on 8.12.2003 she wrote another application to the President Santosh Mishra to know why her complaints/applications were denied to accept and asked her to give reasons for the same. Same is Ex.PW2/2. On the same day she made UPC of the said letter since they were not receiving her letter directly. UPC is Ex.PW2/3. On the same day she had given copy of application and UPC of the same to the care taker of learned Judge In charge. Care taker had given the receiving of the same and same is Ex.PW2/4. On 9.12.2003 her application was allowed by Ld. Judge In charge Mr. A.K. Sarpal. Copy of the order is Ex.PW2/5. One day while she was sitting in her chamber, the date she did not remember accused Bhupinder came in front of her chamber and washed his hands at her door. She saw at that time President Santosh Mishra along with Vice-President Karan Singh were sitting in park in front of the chamber of the Secretary Madan Lal. Thereafter, she went to Ms. Santosh Mishra and asked her to accompany her and see the mess which was present in front of her chamber. On that madam Santosh Mishra told her, 'hum nahi 30 dekhte, hum yaha tumhare chamber ke aage ki gandagi ko dekhne ke liye nahi aaye hai, apke liye to court or thana hi sab kuch hai, unhe hi dikhao unhe hi complaints do'. On 16/17.1.2004, she saw there was short circuit inside her chamber and she went to make her complaint to the office and she had written her complaint in the register in which complaint regarding electricity was to be made. On the next day she saw that main line wire connecting to her chamber was snapped by the executive body members. The said fact she came to know later. She photographed the same which is Ex.PW2/6. Thereafter she went to Bar Office and met electrician Ram Lakhan and asked him to accompany her and give electric supply to her chamber. Ram Lakhan said to her that 'madam, mere hath mai to chot lagi hai abhi dusre electrician se theek kara dete hai'.
PW2 stated that on 8.3.2004 she again went to Bar Office and lodged her complaint in the Bar Office complaint register. Then, Mr. Ram Lakhan said to her that 'madam aap chalo hum abhi khana kha ker aate hai', but nobody came till evening. On 11.3.2004 she again went to Bar Office and lodged her complaint in the Bar Office complaint register third time and asked one person Dulare or Jairam where is electrician Ram Lakhan. He told her to see in the complaint register of that day. She saw the complaint register and noted many chamber numbers dated 11.3.2003 and she searched the electrician Ram Lakhan then she found him in the chamber No.352 where he was repairing the ceiling fan. Then she asked him why did he not repair electricity wire of her chamber and supply of electricity? However he immediately entertained others' 31 complaints. Then he said to her, 'madam apke chamber ki wire jan- bhujhkar Bar walo ne kati hai, Secretary Madan Lal ne kaha hai ki madam Sarojbala ke chamber me electricity supply nahi deni hai.' Thereafter she met Secretary Madan Lal and asked him whether he had directed not to repair electricity wire of her chamber, then he told her, 'Ha, maine mana kiya hai'. She again asked why he had said so. He replied, 'meri marzi aap hoti kaun hai puchhne wali?' She asked him to give the same in writing. But he refused. Thereafter she met President Santosh Mishra and asked about the same. Then she said to her, 'meri tabiyat theek nahi hai, mai koi tension nahi lena chahti, apne Bar ki bani hui deewar ko kyo toda? apne advocate Bhupinder ke khilaf FIR kyo karai? aap ke liye to pichly executive body bhi nalayak thi aur hamari body bhi nalayak hai.' Then she said that on the basis of the false complaint dated 2.7.2003 of the accused persons the previous body sealed the chamber itself and then sealed it by the court when body was making illegal wall in her chamber inspite of common wall. She also said to her that again the accused persons made false complaint dated 6.10.2003 and on the basis of the same body pressurized her to again make the wall which was removed by her on 2.10.2003 to 5.10.2003 by the order of Shri A.K. Sarpal, learned Judge In charge and directed the office staff not to take her complaint and application of wood work to be continued in her chamber and now disconnected the supply wire of electricity of her chamber. She also said to her that accused persons used to dirty in front of her chamber which she even did not want to see nor take any action on the same. Then she replied, 'padosiyo ke sath milke rehna chahiye unki baato ko sahen karna chahiye.' Then she (I) said, 'aap hame aapas mai ek-dusre ki sahen karne 32 do, sirf mujhe nuksan pahuchane ke liye aap hamare beech mai kyo aate ho?' Then she said, 'inki to hum zaroor sunenge, unhone to hume jitaya hai'. Thereafter she went to the Bar Office on 11.3.2004 to take her electricity complaint dated 16/17.1.2004 and 8.3.2004 and that day 11.3.2004 to give the same to the care taker office of the learned Judge, In charge with her complaint but Jairam or Dulare refused. Then she gave the complaint regarding the said incidents to the care taker of learned Judge In charge which is Ex.PW2/7.
PW2 further stated that on 16.3.2004 she again gave a complaint against accused Bhupinder Singh regarding the mess in front of her chamber as well on her chamber's door to PS Tilak Marg. The same is Ex.PW2/8. On 20.3.2004 she saw that someone peaked at her chamber's door but she doubted on the accused Bhupinder Singh because he had already said before that, 'madam ke chamber par thuko, chair par thuko, table par thuko, aage thuko, sab jagah thuko'. She would not be able to open the door of her chamber and go inside. After the said incident, she called 100 No. and made a complaint. The same is Ex.PW2/9. On 21.4.2004 she gave a complaint to learned Judge. In charge Mr. A.K. Sarpal regarding the said incidents. The same is Ex.PW2/10. On the same day she made a complaint to PS Tilak Marg against accused persons Advocate Bhupinder Singh, Advocate Sanjeev Kumar, Advocate S.K. Solanki and Advocate S.B. Dandapani regarding the mis-placing of cemented roof and regarding the disconnection of electricity supply which is Ex.PW2/11. On 4.5.2004 she gave the complaint to the learned Judge In charge, SHO and Commissioner of Delhi Police regarding the 33 said incidents and also stated in complaint that if in future she, her family member and her chamber get any loss or damage, all the accused persons and members of Executive Body (2002-03, 2003-04) would be liable for that. The same is Ex.PW2/12, 13 and 14 respectively. On 19.5.2004 she made one complaint to the Hon'ble Chief Justice of Delhi High Court and Hon'ble Chief Justice of India regarding the said entire incidents. The same is Ex.PW2/15 and 16. On 27.7.2004 she was sitting in her chamber and advocate Bhupinder came in front of her chamber and washed his hands and when she objected, he shouted at her and said, 'mai to aise hi hath dhounga tere darwaze par, tu kya kar legi? She called the 100 No. police came and she showed them the water and the mess in front of her chamber and door. When police officials were sitting in her chamber then a client of advocate S.K. Solanki spat in front of her chamber. One police official asked her why she did not object to the same. She told him the entire facts and incidents. Thereafter one more official came to her chamber and she told him the entire thing and showed him the mess. Then he asked the accused persons why did they mess and spat in front of madam's chamber? She wrote a complaint regarding the said incidents to the police. Same is Ex.PW2/17.
PW2 deposed that on 29.9.2004 she was sitting in her chamber in the meanwhile a client of Advocate Sanjeev Kumar peaked in front of her chamber. Then she asked him why did he peak in front of her chamber. He said to her, 'maine to thuk diya tum mere upar case kar do'. She again called the 100 No. Before coming of the Police, advocate Sanjeev came to his chamber and talked to the same client and told him 34 to go. When she asked him why he was going, he replied, 'hamare vakil saheb ne hame jane ke liye kah diya hai ki wo sambhal lenge'. Then she asked advocate Sanjeev Kumar why he was letting them go, he replied, 'kya unhe rassi se band ker rakhu'. Thereafter, police came and she gave a written complaint which is Ex.PW2/18. On 8.2.2005 she received a notice from Bar Council of Delhi stating that she had to appear in Bar Council meeting on 26.2.2005. She along with her sister advocate Asha Rani went to attend the meeting on 26.2.2005. There the Bar Council members threatened them saying that 'in charo advocates aur executive body (2002-03) members ke against koi complaint nahi banti aur na hi inke against koi action liya jayega, aap apni complaint wapas le warna aap ke against action liya jayega aur aap hi ke against notice bheja jayega,' after that they asked them to stay outside and they would call them again. For the next 2 hours nobody called them. Thereafter they went inside and asked about her case, then Mr. K.K. Sarin, Chairman said to them that both of them go and notice would be sent to them regarding the next date of meeting. But thereafter she did not receive any notice till date and whenever she enquired about her case to office staff they told her that nothing had been decided till then, whenever something would be decided she would be informed.
PW2 further deposed that on 12.4.2005 and 15.4.2005 she gave additional complaint against all the accused persons and members of Executive Body (2003-04) to the Bar Council of Delhi. Receiving copy of the same is Ex.PW2/19 and PW2/20 respectively. On 3.5.2006 she again gave an application to the Bar Office for taking the copy of order dated 35 24.7.2003 and copy of complaint dated 6.10.2003. Prior to that application many applications were given regarding the same. The same is Ex.PW2/21. On 11.5.2006 she gave an application to the Bar Council of Delhi to know the progress of her complaint No.66/03. On 17.12.2005, accused Bhupinder again abused her and she was constrained to call 100 No. and give the complaint of the same to PS Tilak Marg. Thereafter she visited PS Tilak Marg to inquire about her complaint dated 17.12.2005 but all in vain. On 8.2.2006 she filed a complaint case on the said complaint against all the accused persons and the same was still pending before the court of Shri Jeetender Mishra, Ld. MM. The same is Ex.PW2/22. On 19.1.2006 she again gave an application to the Bar Office for taking the copy of order dated 24.7.2003 and copy of complaint dated 6.10.2003. On 9.7.2007 when she came to her chamber she saw that the rain water was coming to her chamber from pipe of roof of advocate Bhupinder due to which her chamber's articles became wet and became useless. Before that she had many times requested to repair the pipe to Bhupinder but he did not pay any heed. Thereafter she again gave a complaint against Bhupinder Singh, Sanjeev Kumar, S.K. Solanki, S.B. Dadapani and members of Executive body of 2002-03 as well as 2003-04 regarding the same and spitting and misconduct, misbehaviour, abusing her and regarding the 'jaadu-tona'. The receiving copy of the same is Ex.PW2/23. On 25.7.2007 she gave an application to the Bar Council of India for giving the directions to the Bar Council of Delhi to take action on her complaint. The copy of the same is Ex.PW2/24 and the courier receipt of the same is Ex.PW2/25 respectively. She also sent the same copy to the Bar Council of Delhi. The copy of the same is Ex.PW2/26. On 8.8.2007 she 36 received a letter from the Bar Council of India regarding her complaint dated 25.7.2007. The copy of the same is Ex.PW2/27.
PW2 stated that on 25.3.2008 she again gave a complaint against the advocate Bhupinder Singh to PS Tilak Marg regarding stopping her on the way. The same is Ex.PW2/28. An application was given to the Bar Office on 19.1.2006 for taking the copy of the complaint which was given by the Advocates Bhupinder, S.K. Solanki, Sanjeev Kumar, S.B. Dandapani against her on 6.10.2003 and photocopy of order dated 24.7.2003 which was passed against her by the Members of Executive Body in 2002-03 which is Ex.PW2/29 and again an application was given to the Bar Office on 3.5.2006 for taking the copy of the complaint which was given by the Advocates Bhupinder, S.K. Solanki, Sanjeev Kumar, S.B. Dandapani against her on 6.10.2003 and photocopy of order dated 24.7.2003 which was passed against her by the Members of Executive Body in 2002-03 is Ex.PW2/30. She stated that one day a client of Advocate Solanki forcibly entered in her chamber and when she objected he said, "kya ho gaya agar andar aa gaya to". On this Advocate Solanki said sorry on his client's behalf. Thereafter she saw that Advocate Bhupinder, S.K. Solanki, Sanjeev Kumar, S.B. Dandapani were laughing. One day when she was going to her chamber, then Advocate Bhupinder was talking to Advocate Solanki in a filthy language using words like "Maa-chhod." Whenever she came and went to her chamber, while talking on the phone with his advocate friends and clients, accused Bhupinder used to abuse in filthy language in his conversation in words like "behen ka loda, behen chhod". Regarding this she had made a complaint to the PS Tilak Marg copy of which is Ex.PW2/31. On 25.7.07 she 37 made a complaint to the Bar Council of India and copy to Bar Council of Delhi. Copy of the same is Ex.PW2/24 dated 8th April, 2009. On 25.3.2008 Advocate Bhupinder stopped her way. She had also made a complaint in this regard in PS Tilak Marg. Copy of the same is Ex.PW2/28. She stated that all the accused persons and members of Executive Body 2002-03 & 2003-04 used to stare at her by showing their face expression in retaliation of complaint lodged by her as if she would face dire consequences for that.
PW2 stated that on 19.4.2008 she made a complaint in PS Tilak Marg as well as Bar Council of India, Bar Council of Delhi, Commissioner of Police and to Hon'ble Chief Justice of India. Copy of same is Ex.PW2/32. Receipt of the same is collectively Ex.PW2/32 (I-IV). PW2 stated that on 11.5.2006 she gave an application to the Bar Council of Delhi for taking the order sheet /decisions /progress report on complaint No.66/2003. Receiving copy of the same is Ex.PW2/33. On 26.2.2005 she along with her sister after receiving notice of Bar Council of Delhi went to the Bar Council of Delhi for attending the first hearing of the complaint No.66/2003. There one member of said committee loudly said ''apni complaint wapas lo, inke khilaf koi case nahi banta, aap ke hi against action liya jayega or aaphi ke against notice bheja jayega''. She gave the said complaint No.66/2003 on 15.10.2003 to the Bar Council of Delhi but since then no action had been taken against Bhupinder Singh, Sanjeev Kumar, S.K. Solanki, S.B. Dandapani, members of Executive Body in the year 2002 to 2003 and after that she gave an additional complaint on 15.4.2005 against the said accused persons as well as members of Executive Body year 2003 to 2004 but since then no action had been taken against them 38 because Mr. K.K. Manan was the President of Executive Body year 2002 to 2003 and he was also the accused in the said complaint. Mr. K.K. Manan was the Chairman of Bar Council of Delhi in the year 2007 and Mr. Ramesh Gupta who is counsel of accused persons in the present case was also Chairman of Bar Council in the year 2006. On 19.4.2008 the complainant gave a complaint to the Bar Council of India, Hon'ble Chief Justice of Supreme Court, Bar Council of Delhi, SHO PS Tilak Marg as well as Commissioner of Police, regarding the said facts and the same is Ex.PW2/32 (I-IV).
PW2 stated that on 26.6.2008 when she was coming towards her Chamber, then she saw that Mr. S.K. Solanki, Adv. had closed the door of her Chamber in indecent manner which was adjacent to grill of the park. And Mr. S.K. Solanki started talking to Adv. Madan Lal who was standing in the park. Thereafter Adv. S.K. Solanki and Adv. Madan Lal ''mujhe ghoor kar dekhne lage''. She gave the complaint to PS Tilak Marg on 27.6.2008 which is Ex.PW2/34. On 23.3.2009 when she reached at her Chamber at lunch time she saw that the grill of the park which was adjacent to her chamber and of Mr. Sanjeev's Chamber was not there. Thereafter she met Vice President Mr. Ram Singh and asked him for removing the said grill then he said to her '' madam aapke padosi advocate Bhupinder Singh, Sanjeev Kumar, S.K. Solanki and S.B. Dandapani ke kahne par humne who grill hatai hai, and kyonki aap chamber ki owner nahi hai, sahbi chambers ki owner bar/Executive body hai, isle aapse puchne ki zarurat nahi hai aur nahi batane ki, Bar/Executive Body ko poori power hai who kuch bhi kar sakti hai, hume aap se puchne ki zurarat nahi hai'. Thereafter she met President Mrs. 39 Santosh Mishra about the same. Then she told her that ''hata di toh hata di aap apne door Chamber ke andar laga lo aur aap 6-7 saalo se in charo Advocates ke against and members of executive body complaint de rahi hain''. Thereafter she went to the office of Care Taker and stated entire things to care taker and requested him to come and to see the removal of the grill. He came with her and he saw the same and said ''madam iski complaint kar do''. Then she called at 100 number. Police came and she gave a complaint of the same to the police officials and to the office of NDBA as well as office of Care taker. The copy of the same are Ex.PW2/35 and Ex.PW2/36. She stated that due to removal of the said grill, the doors of her chamber were being always closed by the advocates, clients etc. and due to the same she had to object to the same and in reply of the objections everybody said that it was a way and they started arguments with her. The photographs of chamber's lock (on which pan and tobacco was peaked) which were given with Ex.PW2/9 are Ex.P-1. The photographs of broken lock which was broken by the members of Executive Body 2002-2003 is Ex.P-2. The photograph of tools by which the lock was broken is Ex. P-3. The postal receipt dated 15.9.2003 is Mark PW2/S to Ex. PW2/U. Complaint dated 25.9.2003 given to learned District Judge is Ex.PW2/V. Undertaking to learned Judge In charge Shri A.K. Sarpal is Ex.PW2/W. Reply/undertaking dated 25.9.2003 and 26.9.2003 are Ex.PW2/X and Ex.PW2/Y. Application dt.07.10.2003 for taking the order dated 24.7.2003 is Ex.PW2/Z-15. One application dated 18.10.2003 for taking order dated 24.7.2003 and accused's complaint dated 06.10.2003 is Mark PW2/Z-16. One application dated 04.1.2005/ 05.1.2005 for taking order dated 24.7.2003 and accused's complaint dated 06.10.2003 is Mark 40 PW2/Z-16. One application dated 06.11.2003 for taking the permission of wood work to the learned Judge In charge Shri A.K. Sarpal is Mark PW2/1. One application dated 07.11.2003 and 08.12.2003 for taking the permission of wood work to the learned Judge In charge Shri A.K. Sarpal is Mark PW2/1. One application dated 15.3.2004 for taking the permission of wood work received by the member Library is Mark PW2/1 and UPC dated 08.12.2003 is Mark PW2/3. One complaint to learned Judge Shri A.K. Sarpal dated 11.3.2004 is Mark PW2/7. Complaint dated 16.3.2004 Mark PW2/8. Complaint dated 20.3.2004 is Mark PW2/9. Complaint dated 21.4.2004 to PS Tilak Marg is Mark PW2/11. Complaint dated 19.5.2004 given to Hon'ble Chief Justice of High Court and Hon'ble Chief Justice of Supreme Court are Mark PW2/15 and PW2/16 (OSR). Complaint dated 04.5.2004 and 5.5.2004 to SHO PS Tilak Marg and Commissioner of Delhi Police, Care Taker of learned Judge In charge are Mark PW2/12 to PW2/14. Complaint dated 27.7.2004 is Mark PW2/17. Complaint dated 29.9.2004 is Mark PW2/18. Complaint dated 12.4.2005 and 15.4.2005 to the Bar Council of Delhi are Mark PW2/19 and Ex.PW2/20.
8. It is thus seen that PW2 has stated about the alleged incident of 19.11.2003 when she was putting a keel in her chamber and the accused came into her chamber and asked her to stop the 'thak, thak' and why she was making noise and otherwise she would get a slap and he called her 'haramzadi'. She stated that Advocate Bhupinder came to her chamber and abused her. She stated that he was not letting her sit peacefully in the chamber. After saying the same the accused went into his chamber and Solanki also went into the chamber of the accused 41 Bhupinder. She saw that there were 3-4 other Advocates sitting in the chamber of accused whose names she did not know. It may be mentioned that initially 3 advocates were challaned but even in court the complainant has not said anything against anyone except the accused and regarding Solanki she merely stated that Solanki went into the chamber of the accused which would not make out any offence against him nor against the other 3-4 Advocates sitting in the chamber of the accused in absence of anything specific done by them. Thereafter she had made a complaint on 100 number and the accused told PCR officials to meet Shri Madan Lal. She had stated that she had told PCR officials that in past also accused had fought with her together with Solanki and Sanjeev and everytime Bar members were called and matter got compromised but it is pertinent that the present FIR is based on the complaint made regarding incident of 19.11.2003. She had stated about an earlier complaint dated 13.7.2003 as well on which no action was taken but that incident is not in question in the present case.
9. PW2 had stated that she had purchased the said chamber in 2002 and it is pertinent that she stated there was very little space in front of her chamber. She had stated about there being filth there and her getting everything cleaned and about the advocates, friends and clients of accused coming there and spitting. She stated about the incident one day when client of Solanki had spat there and to prevent the same in future she put a broken table there on which Advocate Solanki came outside and instead of stopping his client he asked her to remove her table. She has also stated about dispute over broken chair and a window 42 lying there but neither the date of the said incident is stated nor that anything happened which could make out any offence. The complainant also stated that Shri Avdhesh Rana got the matter compromised that no one would spread filth and they should both remove their things. She stated about a common dustbin also lying in front of the Chamber of Sanjeev where one client spitted again and that on her objection Bhupinder told her that the dustbin would remain at the same place and what could she do. She herself stated that she threw away the dustbin in a fit of anger on which accused Bhupinder asked his clerk to bring the dustbin and spit in the chamber, table, chair and even on the Madam/ her when again the matter was got compromised between them. As such there was animosity between the parties even earlier. She stated about another incident when the client of Sanjeev spat outside her Chamber and she put her chair in order to save garbage outside her chamber and Bhupinder told her to remove the chair and threatened her that he is a very bad person and ''you don't know me'' and Sanjeev Kumar and Solanki also came into her chamber but again Vice President Pradeep Gaur came there and he got the matter compromised between them and he got put up one ply board at the grill to protect the garbage or spitting of public. Again the date of the said incident is not stated. She stated about another incident when Mr. Avnish Rana told her to remove the ply-board from the grill and the pedestal fan on the request of Bhupinder, Solanki and Sanjeev but she refused to remove both the things. Later she found the pedestal fan and the ply board had been removed on which she lodged a complaint with Pradeep Gaur. As such it is seen that on all occasions the matter was compromised and there is 43 nothing which would attract any offence.
PW2 stated about the incident of 26.6.2003when mason and labourer were working inside her chamber and Sanjeev, Solanki and Bhupinder came to her chamber and quarreled with her and told her to remove the wall under the window of her Chamber and they told the mason and labourer to remove the wall first otherwise they would be beaten and they would get the chamber of Madam demolished. She stated that on 02.7.2003 Sanjeev, Bhupinder, S.B. Dandapani and one Typist Surya Prakash Mishra gave false complaint against her in NDBA and the typist gave complaint regarding theft of his chair on which the Bar Association sealed her Chamber. Then she met Mr. Wadhwa who told her to attend the meeting at 12 noon where she was directed by Mr. Wadhwa to raise two walls on both sides of her Chamber even the same was common wall with Mr. Bhupender's Chamber and Mr. Dandapani and also told her to remove the door of her Chamber only then the seal of her chamber would be opened and the Treasurer Manish told her to raise the wall without obtaining permission from the court. On 09.7.2003 Bhupinder and Sanjeev washed their hands outside her Chamber and the water was flowing towards her side and their clients were spitting outside her Chamber which she ignored. Rain started and accused Bhupinder opened the door of her Chamber in a rude manner and told her that due to the weight of her roof, the water was seeping in his chamber and they would get her chamber demolished. On 10.7.2003 the typist Surya Prakash Mishra apologized that he had filed a false complaint against her on the instance of Bhupinder.
44
PW2 has stated about complaint dated 14.7.2003 to NDBA and she explained the whole incident to Mr. Manan who asked her about the compromise and he threatened her that she was leveling allegations against the member of Executive board/Bar Council. On 22.7.2003 Mr. Manan told her that there were cracks on the roof of Adv. Bhupinder and Adv. Dandapani and the water of her roof goes to their roof which she denied and told him that she would repair the cracks of their roof but there is nothing to show that she had repaired the cracks. In the meeting of Executive Body she was pressurized to raise a separate wall of her chamber and change the door but she did not agree for the same on which she was threatened by the Members of the Executive Body. On 24.07.2003 in the meeting they had pressurized her to erect a wall inside her chamber inspite of common wall. She was threatened so she signed the order dated 24.7.2003 without knowing the contents of the order. She stated about moving several applications for obtaining the copy of the said order dated 24.7.2003 but could not find the same.
PW2 had stated about construction being got done in her chamber on 6.8.2003 by NDBA saying they had permission from the court. Her chamber was sealed by order of the court and when she went to Pradeep Gaur and Mr. Rana and asked them they replied in a threatening way. On 01.10.2003, her chamber was unsealed on undertaking to demolish the wall and she demolished the wall and repaired her chamber on her cost. On 6.10.2003, Advocates Bhupinder, Solanki, S.B. Dandapani and Sanjeev came to her chamber and she told 45 them that she had demolished the illegal wall by the order of learned Judge-In charge. On 7.10.2003 there was meeting of Executive Body on the basis of complaint of accused and other Advocates and she was asked to make the wall in her chamber and to change the door which she refused. On 3.11.2003 Solanki came and shut the door of her chamber in anger and he started quarreling with her on which she called the police at 100 No. On 6.11.2003 she gave an application for permission to start wood work in her chamber. On 13.11.2003 her application for woodwork and complaint dated 13.11.2003 regarding missing of photo of Lord Shiva was not to taken. Same thing happened on 6.12.2003. However on 9.12.2003 her application was allowed by Ld. Judge In charge.
10. The complainant has also stated about other incidents when accused Bhupinder came in front of her chamber and washed his hands at her door but on her asking President Santosh Mishra and Vice-President Karan Singh refused to intervene; on 16/17.1.2004 there was short circuit inside her chamber and the electrician told her that the wire was deliberately cut by the Bar. On 16.3.2004 she again gave a complaint against accused Bhupinder Singh regarding the mess in front of her chamber as well on her chamber's door to PS Tilak Marg; the alleged incident of 20.3.2004; on 21.4.2004 she gave a complaint regarding the mis-placing of cemented roof and regarding the disconnection of electricity supply; on 27.7.2004 advocate Bhupinder came in front of her chamber and washed his hands and shouted at her and when police officials were sitting in her chamber a client of advocate S.K. Solanki spat 46 in front of her chamber; on 29.9.2004 a client of Advocate Sanjeev Kumar peaked in front of her chamber; on 26.2.2005 the Bar Council members threatened them; on 17.12.2005 accused Bhupinder again abused her; on 9.7.2007 she saw that rain water was coming to her chamber from pipe of roof of advocate Bhupinder due to which her chamber's articles became wet and became useless and she again gave a complaint; on 25.3.2008 she again gave a complaint against the advocate Bhupinder Singh to PS Tilak Marg regarding stopping her on the way; one day a client of Advocate Solanki forcibly entered in her chamber; one day when she was going to her chamber accused was talking to Advocate Solanki in a filthy language and whenever she came and went to her chamber, while talking on the phone with his advocate friends and clients, accused Bhupinder used to abuse in filthy language in his conversation; on 26.6.2008 she saw that Mr. S.K. Solanki, Adv. had closed the door of her Chamber in indecent manner and Mr. S.K. Solanki and Mr. Madan Lal started at her; on 23.3.2009 she saw that the grill of the park which was adjacent to her chamber and of Mr. Sanjeev's Chamber was not there due to which the doors of her chamber were being always closed by the advocates, clients etc.
11. As such the complainant has stated about various incidents prior to and after the incident of 19.11.2003 and it is evident that there was dispute between the complainant and the accused regarding filth, the common wall between the chambers and other such issues. The complainant has also stated about incidents qua Advocates Solanki, Dandapani and Sanjeev Kumar but there is nothing in her deposition as 47 would make out any offence against them. She had also made various allegations against office bearers and members of successive Bar Associations and Bar Council of Delhi and that she was threatened by them but she herself has stated about making a separate complaint in that regard and a complaint case is also pending in court of Sh. Jitendra Mishra, Ld. MM. It may be mentioned at the cost of repetition that she had moved an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. for summoning them as well in the present case which was dismissed and the order of dismissal was upheld by the learned ASJ. The complainant had also wanted to include other offences but again it is not in dispute that she had made separate complaints in that respect and she had also filed a complaint case which was pending and the scope of the present case cannot be enlarged to include other incidents as well. The complainant had moved an application u/s 216 Cr. P.C when shew as given time to advance final arguments and the same holds true of the said application as well as th case itself is based on the complaint about incident dt. 19.11.2003 on which date nothing happened on basis of which offences sought to be got included are made out.
12. The complainant was cross-examined regarding the purchase of her chamber and during cross-examination PW2 stated that she purchased chamber 929 from one Shri Vinod Kumar, Advocate. When she purchased the chamber there was a common wall on two sides of the said chamber. The papers in regard to purchase of chamber were prepared vol. the said chamber was transferred in her name by the General Secretary in 2002. The two walls which she referred to were of Bhupinder and Dandapani, Advocates. Again said the said walls were 48 common. When she purchased the said space of chamber 929, it was not in her knowledge when the chamber of Bhupinder Singh and of Shri Dandapani were constructed. She admitted that the said two chambers were already in existence prior to her purchase of chamber 929 vol. when she purchased the said space, Vinod Kumar told her that two sides at the said space had already been constructed as common wall. There was nothing in writing in respect of the two common walls. When she purchased the said space for chamber, the broken cement sheets were lying on the roof. The said broken sheets were placed on two common walls and two iron pipes. She put 'sillis' on the roof after removing the broken cemented sheets and accordingly the height of the roof was raised. The said roof was raised 3-4 height of bricks. The bricks on the roof were laid on four sides that is towards Dandapani, Bhupinder Singh, park and gali vol. the roofs of all the chambers were in haphazard manner. Again said the roof of Bhupinder Singh was also at a 4-5 height of bricks then Sanjeev and Solanki. The roof of chamber Nos. 926-928 had common roof. The roof of Sanjeev and Solanki was common. She did not know the breadth of common passage between her chamber and Sanjeev's chamber. The width of the passage was so narrow that two persons could not walk together in the said gali. One person had to tilt while crossing other (gali mai se do admi ek dum seedhe hokar nahi nikal sakte, unme se ek ko teda hokar nikal sakta hai). She had placed two windows towards the side of park vol. one window was for cooler. She did not know the exact width of iron gate of her chamber vol. when it was opened and fixed with grill of park. She could open her door only when the door of Sanjeev was put with wall of his chamber and if the door of 49 Sanjeev was slightly tilted then the door of her chamber would not open completely vol. the doors of Sanjeev and Solanki while opening overlap each other. Further said the doors of most of the chambers were like that. (agar Bhupinder ke chamber ka darwaja khulne ke baad deewar se na lagaya jaye to koi bhi person us gali se nahi aa-ja nahi sakta, jab kabhi Bhupinder ke chamber ki khirki khulti hai to aadmi teda hokar hi aa ja sakta hai).
13. PW2 stated that she faced the chamber of Sanjeev Kumar while she occupied her chair. Similar was the situation with Sanjeev Kumar, Chamber No.930. Similar was the position of Satish Solanki. She stated that while sitting in his chamber the accused faced the wall of her chamber. She did not remember when the partition between Bhupinder Singh and Arvind's chamber took place vol the partition might have taken place 2 to 3 years prior. She stated that she had enrolled with Delhi Bar Council in the year 1995. She became member of New Delhi Bar Association either in 1998 or 1999. PW2 stated that she constructed the chamber in the month of June 2003 in the summer vacation. She admitted that in Patiala House no new construction, repair, even the partition within the chamber, repair of the roof, whitewash could not be carried out without the permission of court of learned Judge in charge. She stated that she took permission for roof repair from the court of Ms. Kamini Lau, the then Judge in charge on 18/19.6.2003. She was asked if it was correct that she had taken permission for roof repair but she had repaired the whole chamber to which she denied the same. She was asked if she had taken the permission to construct the chamber to which 50 she replied that she did not want to answer the said question as she did not consider it appropriate. She stated that Sanjeev and Bhupinder came in between but she did not know regarding Dandapani and Satish Solanki.
14. PW2 stated that on 26.6.2003, Mr. Bhupender Singh, Mr. Sanjeev and Mr. Solanki objected to her constructing a wall towards gallery saying that it was protruding out from the gallery and it was not in symmetry. She had to say that her wall was very much in the line of the other chambers and was not outside the line of chambers. She was confronted with mark C1 and C2 and stated that the same were photographs on which the said dispute arose. She was asked what objections the accused persons were having regarding conversion of her open space into a chamber to which she replied that the accused persons objected that it was common wall and only the first owner had a right in respect of the same after 2.7.2003 and she did not have right in the same. She stated that Bhupender Singh and Dandapani objected to wall being used by her. Sanjeev had objection that after 2.7.2003 her door hit his door which was incorrect. Satish Solanki also had objection regarding the door and also wall below the window. She denied the suggestion that after she had made her chamber there was a meeting on 24.7.2003 and the matter was resolved vol. she was threatened and her signatures were obtained on the order. She was not aware that it was decided wherein Bhupender had left his right to common wall and she could make on the wall of Dandapani and she would reduce the size of her gate. She was asked if the matter was compromised and she 51 admitted the same and said that however the matter was compromised under threats and she was forced to sign to compromise under threat. The said compromise was entered on 24.7.2003 and when a notice was issued to her for sealing the chamber on date 22.07.2003.
15. During cross-examination DW1 stated that he had been practicing since 1994 as an Advocate. He understood the intricacies involved in the examination-in-chief and cross-examination. He admitted that he knew very well what should he say and what effect his words may have. He stated that he and accused started practice independently in 1996. Later on he came to know that Ms. Saroj Bala had placed her roof on the wall of the chamber of accused Bhupinder and also Advocate Dandapani's wall. In the said connection there is a complaint from Bhupinder and Dandapani pending before Bar Association. He admitted that in 1996 there were only sheds in place of chambers which exist today. He admitted that 99% of the sheds that existed in 1996 had been converted into chambers. The distance between his chamber and of the accused was about 12-13 ft. there were three chambers. Every chamber was about 4 and half ft. in width. He got his chamber constructed in the year 1999-2000. Chamber of accused had been constructed much before than the construction of his chamber. He admitted that the width of the wall of the chamber is of 4 inch. He constructed the wall within the space allotted to him by the Bar Association. Seat was allotted to him and he did not purchase the same vol. he was to clarify that whenever the wall was constructed between two chambers, the width of the wall was shared equally. No document had been shown to him by the accused 52 Bhupinder, Adv. and Adv. Dandapani to show that the wall was constructed within the allotted limit of accused Bhupinder. He admitted that the width of the chamber of the accused was more than 4 and half ft vol. because three chambers had been converted into two. One chamber was in the name of Arvind Singh, one in the name of accused Bhupinder and he did not know the third one. Those chambers were constructed with the permission of Bar Association and he had moved an application before Bar Association, same was granted to him. He stated that it is a very congested area and if little decibel of sounds goes up, all the occupants of the chambers come out of the chamber. He admitted that complainant had purchased the space from Vinod Kumar, Advocate. He admitted that if any repair work and maintenance takes place in the court premises, they have to take permission from concerned authority. Earlier the passage to the park was closed by the grills but previous year all the said grills were removed. He admitted that only two of the grills were removed rest remained there. As per the practice he sought permission from the authorities. He denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely as accused was his friend or they had common electricity meters or that all chambers in B.S. Mehta Square were illegally constructed.
16. Thus PW2 stated that when she purchased the chamber there was a common wall on two sides of the said chamber which were of Bhupinder and Dandapani, Advocates. She again said the said walls were common. She admitted that the said two chambers were already in existence and volunteered that when she purchased the said space, 53 Vinod Kumar told her that two sides at the said space had already been constructed as common wall. However it is significant that she stated that there was nothing in writing in respect of the two common walls. Further broken cement sheets were lying on the roof which were placed on two common walls and two iron pipes. Admittedly she put 'sillis' on the roof and accordingly the height of the roof was raised 3-4 height of bricks. She also stated that the breadth of common passage between her chamber and Sanjeev's chamber was so narrow that two persons could not walk together in the said gali. She stated that she did not know the exact width of iron gate of her chamber but she stated that she could open her door only when the door of Sanjeev was put with wall of his chamber and if the door of Sanjeev was slightly tilted then the door of her chamber would not open completely and volunteered that the doors of Sanjeev and Solanki while opening overlapped each other. As such even from her statement it is evident that the space between her chamber and the chamber opposite was very less.
17. It is pertinent that PW2 stated that she constructed the chamber in the month of June 2003 in the summer vacation. She had stated some incidents but no dates of the same were stated in her examination in chief and it is seen that all the specific incidents stated by the complainant are of or subsequent to June 2003 and there is no specific incident prior to that. Admittedly any work in the chambers could not be carried out without the permission of learned Judge in charge. She stated that she took permission for roof repair from the court and she denied that instead she had repaired the whole chamber. She did not 54 answer if she had taken the permission to construct the chamber saying she did not consider it appropriate but if her whole case is based on dispute over chamber wall there is no reason not to have answered the said question. She stated that on 26.6.2003, Mr. Bhupender Singh, Mr. Sanjeev and Mr. Solanki objected to her constructing a wall towards gallery saying it was not in symmetry on which she stated that it was in the line of the other chambers and she was confronted with mark C1 and C2 in that regard. She stated that the accused persons objected that it was common wall and only the first owner had right in respect of the same after 2.7.2003 and Bhupender Singh and Dandapani objected to wall being used by her and Sanjeev had objection that after 2.7.2003 her door hit his door and Satish Solanki also had objection regarding the door and also wall below the window. She was asked about the compromise dated 24.7.2003 and she stated that she had signed the same under threats and she stated that she was not aware that Bhupender left his right to common wall and she could make on the wall of Dandapani and she would reduce the size of her gate. Though the complainant has deposed extensively about dispute over chamber wall the said issue need not be gone into the present case except that there was animosity between the parties on this account. The complainant had also stated about her chamber being sealed first by the Bar and then by the order of court for carrying out construction which was got done by the Bar but there is no independent evidence in that regard and again that issue need not be gone into in the present case.
18. DW1 stated that he came to know that Ms. Saroj Bala had 55 placed her roof on the wall of the chamber of accused Bhupinder and also Advocate Dandapani's wall. He admitted that the width of the wall of the chamber is of 4 inch. It is significant that he volunteered that he was to clarify that whenever the wall was constructed between two chambers, the width of the wall was shared equally. Even he stated that it is a very congested area and if little decibel of sounds goes up, all the occupants of the chambers come out of the chamber. A suggestion was put to him that the chambers in B.S. Mehta square were illegally constructed but that is beyond the ambit of the present case. As such it is seen that the place where the chambers of the accused and complainant were was a very congested area and even the passage between the chambers was so narrow that the doors also overlapped. The accused and complainant had dispute over common wall and the roof of the chamber of the complainant but the respective rights and contentions of the parties in that regard are beyond the scope of this case and its ambit cannot be expanded to include any such dispute between the parties except to show that there was a dispute between the parties even prior to the alleged incident in question.
19. PW2 was cross-examined regarding her telling the previous owner of the chamber about her dispute with the accused and she stated that she narrated the fact of dispute to Shri Vinod Kumar, Advocate from whom she purchased the said chamber. Mr. Vinod Kumar, Advocate never came to her chamber after knowing the said dispute vol he often used to enquire about the dispute after registration of FIR and he told her that the said people had troubled her, she had done 56 right. Mr. Vinod Kumar told her that he was not having good relations with Mr. Manan, the then President, therefore he was unable to patch up the matter. He further told her that she should meet Mr. Ramesh Gupta, Mahinder Saini and Smt. Santosh Mishra. Thus she stated that she had told Shri Vinod Kumar but there is nothing to show that he himself had intervened in the matter. It may also be mentioned that nothing has come on record that Shri Vinod Kumar had any dispute with the accused or any other neighbour prior to selling the same to the complainant.
PW2 was further asked about knowing the other advocates who operated from the chamber of the accused and she stated that she did not know the names of the Advocates who operated from the chamber of Bhupinder. Similarly she did not know how many juniors were working with Bhupinder Singh. Thus PW2 did not know the other advocates who operated from the chamber of the accused or how many juniors the accused had.
20. It has also come in the testimony of the complainant that there was some dispute between her and the accused and other advocates regarding filth in the area where the chambers were located. PW2 was cross-examined regarding the common dustbin regarding which she had stated in her examination in chief and she stated that the dustbin which was kept as a common dustbin was being used by Bhupinder Singh, Sanjeev Kumar, Satish Kumar Solanki, chamber No.930 was written on that dustbin. The said dustbin was used as common as common munshi was kept vol the clients and advocate friends of Bhupinder Singh used to spit 57 in the said dustbin which was kept in front of door of her chamber. She stated that the dustbin was kept in front of door of her chamber vol the same was kept along with the grill of park and wall of Mr. Sanjeev Kumar. She denied the suggestion that a common dustbin was used as there was shortage of space vol everybody should keep his own dustbin in his chamber. She stated that one broken table, chair was kept by her and plywood (4X6 ft) was kept by Mr. Pradeep Gaur in front of her chamber for prevention of littering by the Advocates Bhupinder, Sanjeev and their Advocate friends vol the size of plywood was told by the Bar employee. She did not know the exact size of table and chair. She stated that the broken chair of Solanki was kept along with the wall and grill of Sanjeev Kumar's chamber and the said dustbin was kept in front of broken chair. She did not know any typist by the name of Anil. She admitted that Solanki used to talk to his typist from the grill in front of her chamber. The said typist used to sit in front of the chamber of Shri Madan Lal and one Shri Verma. She stated that when broken table and broken chair were there then Solanki could talk to his typist by peeping above the said table and chair. She stated that after putting the plyboard it was not possible to have any conversation with the said typist. She stated that earlier also Satish Solanki had objection when she wanted to get the area clean. She denied the suggestion that she was very particular about cleanliness and according to her accused persons liked to keep the place dirty.
21. Thus PW2 stated that the dustbin was a common dustbin being used by Bhupinder Singh, Sanjeev Kumar, Satish Kumar Solanki. She had stated that the dustbin was kept in front of door of her chamber and 58 volunteered that the same was kept along with the grill of park and wall of Mr. Sanjeev Kumar but clearly it has come on record that the space was very narrow and if dustbin was in front of door the same could not be opened. She was also cross-examined regarding the broken table and chair and the plyboard. She denied the suggestion that she was very particular about cleanliness and according to her accused persons liked to keep the place dirty but she has stated about the filth in the area and again as far as it is material for the present case it shows that there was dispute between the complainant and the accused also in this regard.
22. Coming to the incident in question PW2 stated that she did not know who were the other lawyers who were present in the chamber of accused on 19.11.2003. There were only males in the chamber at that time. She could not say if anyone from the neighbouring chambers were present there vol. however, there was only crowd. Again said Solanki was present at the gate of the chamber. She could not say if Pushpa Singh, Lalit Baweja, Sandeep Messi were present in the chamber of Accused Bhupender at that time vol. no lady was there. She denied the suggestion that no such incident had taken place on 19.11.2003. She denied the suggestion that she had lodged the said FIR just to distract the attention from the dispute of chamber or that she had made complaint against all the 4 accused persons against whom she was having dispute regarding chamber who were objecting regarding construction of the chamber. She denied the suggestion that she found herself insecure or that she thought all persons were against her or that she had lodged false FIR just to take advantage as pressure tactics.
59
23. PW2 stated that the incident was of 19.11.2003. She had not mentioned in the complaint that the incident was of 19.11.2003 but the complaint was of 19.11.2003 which shows that the incident was of 19.11.2003. The said complaint is Ex.PW2/A. She stated that she was putting nail in the side wall of corner. She was putting nail to put curtain on the door. She was standing on the table while putting the nail on the wall. She called 100 number, police personnel came to her. PW2 stated that she did not know who registered her FIR. She only narrated to them. On 19.11.2003 she went to DCP Office and did not go to PS. She did not know when FIR was registered but she received the copy of FIR on 20.11.2003 from the PS. She admitted that complaint was also pending with Bar Association. On 13.7.2003 she also gave copy of the complaint against the accused persons to the police but no action was taken that is why she went to Commissioner of Police on 19.11.2003 and handed over a copy of the complaint. She did not remember the time when the incident had taken place. Again said the incident was of 2003. She admitted that the time was not mentioned in the complaint. She admitted that she pulled the table and was putting the nail towards door when she could not succeed to put the nail in the side wall vol. her door and window were connected and curtain covered both of them. Her wood work application was not allowed and was pending and till that time she was putting the curtain. She stated that IO had come to meet her once regarding the incident of 19.11.2003 and she also went to PS in that regard vol. she showed all the documents to IO some of which he took and for some he told he would take after some time but after 60 sometime he did not come. She denied the suggestion that no such incident had taken place. She stated that IO met her once after the incident of 19.11.2003 and collected some documents and told her that he would come again but then he never visited her again nor recorded her statement vol. IO filed the charge-sheet without recording her statement and collecting documents.
24. PW2 stated that the walls of the chambers are 4 inch i.e one brick wall. She admitted that when she was putting the nail in the wall, it was bound to cause disturbance to other chambers vol. no other lawyer came after hearing the noise of putting the nail into the wall. She stated that she was putting the nail in her wall but the accused was under the impression that she was putting the nail in the common wall, therefore he came when she was putting the nail vol. the accused claimed that since he had constructed the said wall, the first owner had the right on that wall and she had no right on that wall. She denied the suggestion that because of disturbance, accused came out of his chamber and requested her not to disturb him during the working hours. She denied the suggestion that he had not abused her or used abusive language or that she lodged a false complaint. She admitted that she made many complaints against many persons vol. she made complaints against persons when she was harassed and forced to make complaints. She stated that she had no habit of making complaints. PW2 stated that she made complaint in the Bar Council of Delhi against Bhupinder Singh and in that connection she was called once by the Bar Council of Delhi by notice in the year 2005.
61
25. During cross-examination DW1 denied the suggestion that there was a dispute between the complainant and accused regarding the construction of the chamber in which the accused abused the complainant vol. on the other hand complainant made her false complaint against the accused for concealing her mischief. He denied the suggestion that it was in his personal knowledge that accused abused the complainant.
26. During cross-examination PW3 stated that he came to Patiala House Court several times to enquire about the present case. He examined Surya Prakash but he did not give any statement. He did not remember the date on which he examined him. He stated that he had mentioned about persons he enquired from in the CD. He denied the suggestion that he had not interrogated any of the witnesses or that he had carried out all the proceedings in PS. He stated that it was mentioned in CD that there was no witness and evidence found by him vol all facts of investigation were mentioned in CD. During cross-examination PW4 stated that he verified the documents which were given to him by the complainant and seized by him, at the BAR office. None of the BAR office bearers gave his statement to him despite his efforts. He did not remember the exact names of the office bearers at that time. He inquired about the incident from the advocates of adjoining chambers however none agreed to be witness in the case. He denied the suggestion that he did not intentionally record their statements as they had stated that no such incident had taken place.
62
27. Thus PW2 did not know who were the other lawyers who were present in the chamber of accused on 19.11.2003 and stated that there were only males in the chamber at that time. She had stated that Solanki was present at the gate of the chamber but on that basis no offence can be said to be made out against him. She could not say if Pushpa Singh, Lalit Baweja, Sandeep Messi were present in the chamber of Accused Bhupender at that time and volunteered that no lady was there and even the accused has not produced any of the said persons in the witness box in his defence. Even during cross-examination she stated that she was putting nail in the side wall of corner to put curtain on the door. She admitted that the time was not mentioned in the complaint. She also admitted that when she was putting the nail in the wall, it was bound to cause disturbance to other chambers but volunteered that no other lawyer came after hearing the noise of putting the nail into the wall. It is also significant that she herself stated that she was putting the nail in her wall but the accused was under the impression that she was putting the nail in the common wall, therefore he came when she was putting the nail and volunteered about the dispute regarding the common wall. As such it cannot be disputed that putting the nail in the wall would cause disturbance to others especially when the area was a congested one and the complainant had herself stated that the accused had come under the impression that she was putting the nail on the common wall though that would not give the right to anyone to abuse another person. The complainant had stated about use of abusive word by the accused against her and had also stated so in her complaint Ex.PW2/A. However it 63 cannot be also lost sight of that there were ongoing disputes between the complainant and the accused and the main problem appears to have arisen owing to the congestion in the area and over the wall and roof of the chamber.
28. PW2 had also stated about other complaints against the accused to the police, to the Bar Association and the Bar Council of Delhi which were pending. She had stated about the IO filing the charge sheet without collecting all the documents and she had also moved an application before the court in that regard but the same was dismissed. She admitted that she made many complaints against many persons though she denied that she was in the habit of making complaints and volunteered that she made complaints against persons when she was harassed and forced to make complaints. However nothing much turns on the same though she had herself deposed about several complaints even after the lodging of the present case. A suggestion was put to PW2 that she had lodged the said FIR just to distract the attention from the dispute of chamber or that she had made complaint against all the 4 accused persons against whom she was having dispute regarding chamber who were objecting regarding construction of the chamber which she denied but it is also pertinent that there was dispute regarding construction of the chamber between the complainant and the accused and also with Sanjeev Kumar and Solanki against whom also she had made allegations in her testimony and who were also charge sheeted but against whom the proceedings were subsequently dropped. It may be mentioned that the complainant had stated about a false complaint of 64 theft being lodged against her by typist at the instance of the accused but PW3 had specifically stated that he had examined the typist Surya Prakash Mishra and he had stated that he had inadvertently made the complaint and later he had received his payment.
29. It has thus come on record that there were disputes between the complainant and the accused regarding the construction of the chamber and the filth in the area. Many complaints were made by the complainant prior to and after the alleged incident and while some of the earlier complaints were compromised the matter could not be finally resolved. The complainant had tried to bring within the scope of the present case her entire dispute with the accused and others over the chamber even regarding incidents which took place after the alleged incident of 19.11.2003 and with members of successive Bar Associations but clearly that would be beyond the scope of the present case and a complaint case filed by the complainant is pending. She had stated about the alleged incident of 19.11.2003 on the basis of which the present FIR was registered. It was sought to be contended that offence u/s 448/452 IPC is made out as accused had entered her chamber. However, the complainant had herself stated that the accused had come into the chamber thinking that she was putting nail in the common wall. As such merely by entering the chamber S. 448/452 IPC cannot be said to be attracted and there is also nothing to show any preparation being made by accused. Even no other offence can be said to be made out in respect of the alleged incident of 19.11.2003. There is nothing to the effect that the accused had assaulted or used criminal force on the 65 complainant with intent to outrage her modesty, as such S.354 IPC is not attracted. There is also nothing about any threat being extended or alarm being caused thereby so offence u/s 506 IPC is not made out. At the same time it cannot be said there was any conspiracy. Even there is nothing to attract S. 504 IPC. As such there is no merit even in the application u/s 216 Cr. P.C filed by complainant. Though she has stated about the accused using abusive word against her and the disturbance that might have resulted to the accused on account of the complainant putting the nail in the wall would not give him the right to use abusive language but in the light of the circumstances of the case wherein there was animosity between the parties it cannot be said that there was any intention to outrage the modesty of the complainant and the accused is entitled to be given benefit of doubt.
30. In light of the above discussion the prosecution has failed to prove its case against accused beyond reasonable doubt and the accused Bhupinder Singh is given the benefit of doubt and acquitted for the offence under Section 509 IPC. Bail bond cancelled. Surety discharged. File be consigned to record room.
Announced in open court
on 5th day of July, 2010
Signed on 9th Day of July, 2010 (GEETANJLI GOEL)
MM, NEW DELHI