Delhi District Court
Kanika Chauhan vs The State Of Nct Of Elhi And Ors on 23 January, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SHRI NAVJEET BUDHIRAJA, ADDITIONAL
SESSIONS JUDGE-02, SOUTH DISTRICT, SAKET COURTS, NEW
DELHI
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION No. 229/2023
CNR NO. DLST01-005644-2023
IN THE MATTER OF:
Kanika Chauhan
D/o Sh. K S Chauhan
D-60, First Floor
Paryavaran Complex
New Delhi-110030
.......Revisionist
Versus
1. The State
Govt of NCT of Delhi
through prosecutor
2. Priyanka Rai
D/o Harender Rai
R/o H. No. S334, Sudhar Camp
Kalkaji, New Delhi-110019
3. Megha Katari
R/o 82, SFS, South Park APTTS OPP
B Block, Kalkaji, New Delhi
........Respondents
DATE OF INSTITUTION : 08.06.2023
DATE OF RESERVING ORDER : 13.01.2025
DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 23.01.2025
DECISION : Dismissed
JUDGMENT
By way of instant revision petition under section 397 Code Page No. 1 of 15 Digitally signed NAVJEET by NAVJEET BUDHIRAJ BUDHIRAJ Date: 2025.01.23 15:18:27 +0530 of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C), revisionist takes exception to the order dated 06.05.2023, whereby her application moved under section 156(3) Cr.P.C stood dismissed by Learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, South District, Saket Courts, New Delhi (Ld. ACMM), in case bearing CT No. 3779/2020 titled as Kanika Chauhan Vs. Priyanka Rai and Another.
2. In brief, the facts as culled out from the revision petition are as under:
Complainant (revisionist herein) lodged a complaint dated 11.11.2019 vide diary number 33B in respect of opening a fake account by Priyanka Rai (respondent no.2 herein) by the user name 'Pari Sharma' containing defamatory, libelous, scandalous contents, imputations and material against her to tarnish her image and reputation to the public in general and amongst members of legal community in particular.
On 13.11.2019, Complainant had filed another complaint in continuation of the earlier complaint dated 11.11.2019 confirming that Pari Sharma is same as that accused no.2.
On 31.01.2020, a complaint was further registered vide daily diary number 50B PS Saket disclosing the commission of various offences and complainant also brought to the notice of the authority that respondent no.2 and Megha Katari (respondent no.3 herein) had hatched a conspiracy to defame and falsely implicate colleague of the complainant in a heinous offence against the modesty of a woman and demanded Rs.5 lacs to avoid facing false criminal case.
Digitally
signed by
Page No. 2 of 15 NAVJEET
NAVJEET BUDHIRAJ
BUDHIRAJ Date:
2025.01.23
15:18:32
+0530
Upon failure to meet the abovesaid demand, respondent
no.2 and 3 had executed the threat and got registered FIR no.601/2019 PS Kalkaji on false, frivolous and motivated grounds and basis. Complainant has relied upon entire contents as uploaded and associated with the username 'Pari Sharma' including friends list and screenshot of direct messages, transcript of the conversation between her and respondent no.3 dated 15.11.2019 regarding specific demand of Rs.15 lacs to prevent the filing of false criminal case and the law laid down in Lallan Chaudhary Vs. State of Bihar, Ramesh Kumari Vs. State (NCT of Delhi), Alaque Padamsee Vs Union of India and Satish Kumar Goel but police did not lodge FIR and that prompted and constrained the complainant to approach the court by filing the application under section 156(3) Cr.P.C for direction to the police to register FIR under section 385/356/388/506/500/34/120B IPC. Investigating officer (IO) filed status report dated 18.08.2022 wherein it was stated 'as such the crux of the matter is creating a fake page on facebook and posting of the messages on the same, no cognizable offence was made out. Further, the matter of registration of false case at PS Kalkaji by accused persons to extort money is also matter of records and specifically related to PS Kalkaji.' and it was also confirmed by IO that the transcripts of the conversation between complainant and respondent no.3 are correct and true. Respondent no.3 in collusion with respondent no.2 had demanded money to the tune of Rs.15 lacs and non payment thereof led to registration of false, frivolous and motivated FIR bearing number 601/2019 which was registered at PS Kalkaji.
Page No. 3 of 15 Perusal of the status report dated 17.02.2023 confirms and corroborates the case of the complainant but in the subsequent report dated 18.08.2022 filed by the IO he had taken a different stand which may have weighed the mind of Ld. ACMM in passing the impugned order contrary to the facts as well as wrongful appreciation of law laid down in case of Md. Salim (supra).
3. The grounds cited by the revisionist are as under:
Because Ld. ACMM passed the impugned order in utter haste and wrongly applied the law laid down in Md. Salim Vs. State as it is well settled legal position that while applying the law or ratio laid down in a judgment, it is imperative to see the facts and circumstances leading to the passing of the order/judgment which aspect has been overlooked by Ld. ACMM.
Because Ld. ACMM further not appreciated the fact that revisionist has lodged two complaints dated 11.11.2019 and 13.11.2019 that had disclosed cognizable offence. Because the status report filed by the IO corroborate and support the case of the revisionist which was neither considered nor dealt by Ld. ACMM.
Because the impugned order is arbitrary, based on conjectures, cryptic, surmises, entire merit of the case was not discussed and the same was passed without due consideration of entire material available on record.
Because Ld. ACMM failed to appreciate that complaint was filed on 10.02.2020 prior to the charge sheet in case FIR no.601/19.Digitally signed by
NAVJEET NAVJEET BUDHIRAJ BUDHIRAJ 15:18:38 Date: 2025.01.23 +0530 Page No. 4 of 15 Because Ld. ACMM has ignored authorities in case-Lalita Kumari Vs. State of UP, Lallan Chauhdary vs State of Bihar, Ramesh Kumari Vs. State (NCT of Delhi).
4. Reply to the revision petition was filed on behalf of respondent no.3, inter alia, with following submissions:
The revision petition filed by revisionist is clearly misconceived, motivated, untenable and being not at all bonafide on any counts and is liable to be dismissed with exemplary costs. The present revision petition fails to disclose any palpable error or illegality in the impugned order dated 06.05.2023. It is evident from the complaint that no prima facie cognizable offence is made out and therefore the present petition deserves to be dismissed.
The entire complaint is based on an apprehension that 'if' the alleged defamatory material is not deleted from social media, the revisionist will not be able to walk and perform her work as well as those would also destroy her political career in the forthcoming election of Saket Bar Association.
No offence of extortion has been made against the respondent no.3 as admittedly there is no delivery of the property or valuable security in terms of section 383 IPC. The mischief committed by the revisionist is borne out from the fact that the revisionist has malafidely improved her case which is evident from the complaints dated 11.11.2019, 13.11.2019, 15.01.2020 and 31.01.2020.Page No. 5 of 15
Revisionist had filed the complaint bearing number 3509/2020 for registration of FIR against the respondent no.2 and 3, in counterblast to original FIR lodged by the respondent no.2 against the revisionist and her associate namely Md Haris Usmani on allegations of rape and destroying of evidence.
Revisionist despite being aware of the further investigation pending in the sessions case has malafidely filed the present petition seeking for registration of FIR.
5. Ld. Counsel for revisionist and Ld. Counsel for respondent no.3 advanced the arguments on the petition in detail and sought to file brief written synopsis. The written synopsis came to be filed on behalf of the revisionist with some delay, with reliance upon the judgment of Punjab and Haryana High Court in Simarjeet Singh Vs. State of Punjab, 204 ILR P&H 2021(1) and Shiv Kumar Saxena Vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi), date of decision 21.01.2025.
6. Revisionist has assailed the impugned order dated 11.11.2022 of then Ld. ACMM who refused to direct the registration of FIR on the complaint of the revisionist for commission of the offence under section 385/386/388/506/500/34/120B IPC. Before according any consideration to the allegations levelled by the revisionist in relation to these offences, I deem it expedient to reproduce the relevant observation of Ld. ACMM in the impugned order:
"6. The complainant has averred that his defence in FIR No. 601/2019 is not the claim of extortion. However, the said averment is not credible as Digitally signed by NAVJEET NAVJEET BUDHIRAJ Page No. 6 of 15 Date:
BUDHIRAJ 2025.01.23 15:18:44 +0530 allegations in the instant case qua the respondents will effectually constitute part of the defence of the complainant in the case before the Ld. Sessions Court. The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Mohd. Salim Vs. State [(2010) 175 DLT 473] has held that it is not proper exercise of discretion vested in the Magistrate under Section 156(3) of the Code to direct the police to register a fresh FIR on the version of the complainant at the stage where the trial against him was pending before the Court of Sessions............
7. Without going into the merits of the allegations leveled by the complainant and the issue as to whether prima facie cognizable offence is made out against the respondents, this Court is constrained to dismiss the application as the trial is underway before the Ld. Sessions Court and the averments in the instant application does effectually constitute defense of the complainant in the sessions case which is sub-judice. In view of the above, the present application under Section 156(3) of the Code is dismissed."
7. It is manifest from the aforesaid that the Ld. ACMM in paragraph 7 of the impugned order reflected having not delving into the merit of the allegations levelled by the revisionist on the bedrock of the proceeding being underway before Ld. Sessions Court in case FIR no.601/2019, PS Kalkaji.
8. In the prayer clause of the present revision petition, Digitally signed by NAVJEET Page No. 7 of 15 NAVJEET BUDHIRAJ BUDHIRAJ Date:
2025.01.23 15:18:49 +0530 revisionist has sought to set aside the said impugned order and direct to register FIR against respondent no.2 and 3. Later, during arguments, revisionist also prayed for remanding back the original complaint to the court of Ld. ACMM as the impugned order was not passed on merits of the complaint.
9. No doubt, the impugned order reflects that Ld. ACMM did not dwell upon the merits of the allegations levelled in the complaint for the reasons mentioned therein but this court is not precluded from examining the merits of the allegations levelled by the revisionist instead of taking recourse of remanding back the matter. In appropriate cases, where the allegations are found to have some spine and despite which the concerned magistrate fails to pass a reasoned order, in that case, the apposite course of action in the revision jurisdiction would be to remand back the matter with directions to the concerned magistrate to hear the matter afresh and to support its order by way of sufficient reasoning, but where the revisional court, on meditating the record of the revision and the original complaint and other documents, finds that the exercise of remanding back the matter is not warranted in the light of the lackluster case of the complainant, the revisional court can deal with the merits of the case itself.
10. Before embarking upon the analysis of the allegations, let us have a glance at the action taken report filed by the police in the court of Ld. ACMM. In the action taken report filed by SI Dinesh Kumar PS Saket, Delhi dated 20.12.2022 before the then Ld. ACMM has found Digitally signed Page No. 8 of 15 by NAVJEET NAVJEET BUDHIRAJ Date:
BUDHIRAJ 2025.01.23 15:18:54 +0530 and narrated as under:
"Further, as far as matter of registration of false case at PS Kalkaji vide FIR No.601/19 is concerned, it is submitted that the same is also not subjected to be acted by the PS Kalkaji and is a matter of record. Moreover, inquiry with regard to the allegations of demanding extortion money from the complainant by the alleged Megha Katari and Priyanka Rai has also been conducted and during the course of enquiry the complainant in response to the notice U/s 91 Cr.P.C the complainant has provided the audio clip of the conversation made between her and alleged Megha Katari. The audio clip provided by the complainant is pertaining to the conversation made between her and alleged Megha Katari on 15.11.2019 and the same were specifically heard which corroborated the version/allegations of the complainant about demanding money of Rs 15 lacs by the alleged Priyanka Rai through Megha Katari for not filing the rape case as negotiate amount.
The allegations of defaming on Facebook are non-cognizable offence. Further, the matter of registration of false case at PS Kalkaji by accused persons to extort money is also matter of records and specifically related to PS Kalkaji and the chargesheet has already been filed of the said case. However, with regard to the allegations levelled by the complainant regarding demanding extortion money, it is submitted that the conversation provided by the complainant were Page No. 9 of 15 Digitally signed by NAVJEET NAVJEET BUDHIRAJ BUDHIRAJ Date:
2025.01.23 15:18:57 +0530 perused and audio clips were also listened and found corroborated the same and the veracity of the same is a matter of investigation."
11. Apparently, the original complaint filed before the then Ld. ACMM and before this court, revisionist has levelled allegations pertaining to making of false account in the name of 'Pari Sharma' on social media, posting defamatory contents/messages therein and defamation on social media relating to the revisionist and of extorting money to the tune of Rs.15 lacs. The allegations of making of false account on social media, posting of defamatory contents and criminal intimidation would prima facie constitute offence under section 463 IPC, 500 IPC and 506 IPC which are non-cognizable in nature and in respect of which, revisionist is at liberty to pursue her remedies by filing a private complaint against the respondents. The law does not permit registration of the FIR under non-cognizable offence and, thus, no direction can be issued by the court by way of application under section 156(3) Cr.P.C to conduct investigation in the allegations pertaining to non-cognizable offence.
12. In the written synopsis, revisionist has invoked plethora of sections 120B/ 420/ 468/ 411/ 378/ 409/ 463/ 465/ 425/ 426/ 468/469/425/426/499/500/509/34 IPC and section 65 and 66 of IT Act against the respondents, but in the original complaint as well as the present revision petition fail to make out as to how these offences are prima facie attracted. It was incumbent upon the revisionist to have put forth in detail as to how the essential ingredient of the offences invoked Digitally signed NAVJEET by NAVJEET BUDHIRAJ Page No. 10 of 15 BUDHIRAJ Date: 2025.01.23 15:19:01 +0530 are made out. Broadly speaking, as already noted above, the alleged making of an account and defamatory contents purportedly written by the respondent no.2 therein may constitute a non cognizable offence for which revisionist is at liberty to take appropriate action as enunciated under the law.
13. Revisionist has also invoked section 65 and 66 of Information Technology Act, which for reference, are reproduced herein under:
"65. Tampering with computer source documents.-
Whoever knowingly or intentionally conceals, destroys or alters or intentionally or knowingly causes another to conceal, destroy, or alter any computer source code used for a computer, computer programme, computer system or computer network, when the computer source code is required to be kept or maintained by law for the time being in force, shall be punishable with imprisonment up to three years, or with fine which may extend up to two lakh rupees, or with both.
66. Computer related offences. - If any person, dishonestly or fraudulently, does any act referred to in section 43, he shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years or with fine which may extend to five lakh rupees or with both."
14. Clearly, none of the aforesaid sections of the IT Act is made Digitally signed by NAVJEET NAVJEET BUDHIRAJ BUDHIRAJ Date:
2025.01.23 Page No. 11 of 15 15:19:05 +0530 out on the facts of the present complaint as there is no allegation of tampering or damage being done with any computer system or of any hacking. Also, the argument that respondent no.2 has already acknowledged having created a fake ID by the name of Pari Sharma, the same would also fall within the realm of non-cognizable offence in respect of which no action by way of order under section 156(3) Cr.P.C is warranted.
15. In so far as allegation of extortion is concerned, it is the assertion of the revisionist that respondents extorted money from the revisionist and on non payment of the same, a false case bearing FIR no.601/2019 was got registered against the revisionist and other persons. The relevant extract of transcript in this regard is specified in paragraph 2(6) of the revision, which for reference, is reproduced as under:
"MEGHA KATARI: 5 SAAL PEHLE INHONE APNI BADI BETI KI SHADIKARI THI JISME INHONE 7 LAKH RUPEE KHARCHEY THEY KANIKA CHAUHAN: JI JI MEGHA KATARI: AB KEHTI HAIN 7 SAAL MAIN MEHNGAI BADH GAI HAI KANIKA CHAUHAN : JI JI MEGHA KATARI: AB AAP APNE AAP SOCH KAR DEKH LO KI KITNE MILNE CHAHYE MAINE KAHA JI AAP APNI DEMAND BATAO APNE MUNH SE KANIKA CHAUHAN: HMMM MEGHA KATARI : TO INK EKEHNA THA KI MUJHE 15 SE 1 RUPIYA KAM NAHI CAHYE KANIKA CHAUHAN : KITNA Page No. 12 of 15 Digitally signed NAVJEET by NAVJEET BUDHIRAJ BUDHIRAJ Date: 2025.01.23 15:19:09 +0530 MEGHA KATARI : FIFTEEN SE EK RUPYA KAM NAHI CAHYE KANIKA CHAUHAN : ACHA 15 LACKS MEGHA KATARI : HAAN JI KANIKA CHAUHAN : ACHA ACHA"
16. It is also asserted on behalf of the revisionist that the IO in the action taken report dated 20.12.2022 has affirmed that the allegations of the offence of extortion are prima facie made out. In regard to this, it is observed that the court is not bound to blindly act upon the action taken report and has to independently assess the allegations to find out the commission of any cognizable offence warranting directions for investigation through the agency of the police.
17. Before examining the allegations in the light of the above material, let us refer herein the provisions of section 385, 386 and 388 IPC. The definition of extortion can be from section 383 of IPC as "Whoever intentionally puts any person in fear of any injury to that person, or to any other, and thereby dishonestly induces the person so put in fear to deliver to any person any property or valuable security, or anything signed or sealed which may be converted into a valuable security, commits ''extortion".
18. In the case in hand, there is no such averment on the part of the revisionist that the sum of Rs.15 lacs as allegedly demanded from her was paid to the respondents. Delivery of the property or valuable security is one of the pre-requisite of the commission of the offence of Digitally signed by NAVJEET NAVJEET BUDHIRAJ Page No. 13 of 15 BUDHIRAJ Date:
2025.01.23 15:19:13 +0530 extortion, which is not complied with in the present case. Even if, the present case is seen in the context of the alleged commission of attempt to extort money, still I am unable to come to the conclusion that the allegations are sufficient to bring the case within the realm of 'attempt to commit extortion'. No doubt, the alleged transcript indicates some kind of conversation between the parties in relation to striking a deal of some amount in lieu of non filing of a complaint, however, there is no such material indicating that any threat of the prosecution was being extended to the revisionist so as to bring the case within the mischief of the offence of extortion or attempt to extort. No doubt in the offences which are of heinous nature, any kind of settlement between the parties to suppress the prosecution would be morally and legally unsustainable, but it is for the victim of a particular case to enforce her rights by taking recourse to law or to settle it without resorting to the prescribed penal legislation.
19. In the case in hand, the factual position sought to be put forth by way of the complaint as well as the present revision petition is that respondent no.2 had sought to strike a settlement with the revisionist and the other alleged person by asking for some consideration but these circumstances are not sufficient enough to fulfill the ingredients as enunciated for the offence of extortion or attempt to extort or other offences related to extortion.
20. The judgments relied upon by the revisionist are mainly on the legal position where for commission of the cognizable offence, Digitally signed by Page No. 14 of 15 NAVJEET BUDHIRAJ NAVJEET BUDHIRAJ Date:
2025.01.23 15:19:18 +0530 direction can be issued to the police to conduct investigation which in the instant case is not warranted in view of the foregoing discussion.
21. In the result, the present revision petition is found to be bereft of merit and is dismissed. TCR be sent back to Ld. ACMM along with copy of this judgment. Revision file be consigned to Record Room after due compliance. Digitally signed by NAVJEET NAVJEET BUDHIRAJ BUDHIRAJ Date:
2025.01.23 15:19:23 +0530 Announced in the open (NAVJEET BUDHIRAJA) Court on 23.01.2025 Additional Sessions Judge-02, South, Saket Courts, New Delhi 23.01.2025 Page No. 15 of 15