Delhi District Court
Ajay Aggarwal vs Mahesh Bhola on 28 April, 2025
DLNW010009532025
Presented on : 27-01-2025
Registered on : 28-01-2025
Decided on : 28-04-2025
Duration : 0 years, 3 months, 1 days
IN THE COURT OF
ASJ/SPECIAL.JUDGE(NDPS)
AT ,NORTH WEST DELHI
(Presided Over by Sh. Vikram)
Cr Rev/28/2025
Ajay Aggarwal
S/o Shri Jai Bhagwan Aggarwal
R/o A-16, Saraswati Vihar, Pitampura,
Delhi-110034
............. Petitioner/ Revisionist
Vs.
Mahesh Bhola
S/o Sh. Madan Lal Bhola
R/o A-26, Gali no. 10, Raj Nagar, Part-II,
Palam Colony, New Delhi
................. Respondent
Digitally
signed by
----------------------------------------------------------------------------- VIKRAM
VIKRAM Date:
2025.04.28
Sh. Yogesh Goel, Ld. Counsel for appellant. 18:04:53
+0530
Sh. L. S Solanki, Ld. Counsel for respondent.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ajay Aggarwal Vs. Mahesh Bhola Cr Rev/28/2025 Page 1 of page 5
JUDGMENT
(Delivered on 28-04-2025)
1. This revision petition is filed against order dated 17.12.2024 passed by Ld. Trial Court in case FIR No. 163/11, PS Rani Bagh, discharging the respondent from offence u/s 507/120B IPC.
2. Brief facts, necessary for disposal of the present petition, are that on 07.06.2011, the petitioner filed a complaint alleging the respondent was his employee and being employee, respondent knew the signatures and after the respondent was removed from services for his inefficiency and integrity, with intent to dissuage the reputation and cause harm to the petitioner, the respondent filed various RTIs to different authorities in the name of petitioner. The petitioner had earlier filed a complaint on 07.02.2011. However, somebody/ one Naveen Arya from mobile phone no. 09468188999 had threatened the complainant to withdraw the complaint of which petitioner had filed another complaint.
3. On the complaint of petitioner police had registered and FIR no. 163/2011, u/s 419/417/468/471/507/120B IPC. After completion of the investigation, the respondent was chargesheeted for all the offences. However, one Naveen Arya was kept at column no. 12. The petitioner filed the protest petition against keeping Naveen Arya in column no. 12, however, the same was dismissed. The petitioner challenged that disposal of protest petition and the same was also dismissed vide CR NO. 201/19, Digitally signed dated 07.03.2019. by VIKRAM Date: VIKRAM 2025.04.28 18:05:05 +0530 Ajay Aggarwal Vs. Mahesh Bhola Cr Rev/28/2025 Page 2 of page 5
4. After that, the Ld. Trial Court, vide order dated 26.03.2022, discharged the accused/ respondent from offence u/s507/120B IPC, u/s 417/419 IPC and u/s 468 IPC, however, directed charges to be framed u/s 465/471 IPC.
5. The order dated 26.03.2022 was also challanged by the petitioner against which Ld. ASJ-5, vide order dated 17.03.2023 in CR Rev no. 127/22, gave the following directions;
"in view of discussion made herein above, the impugned order to the extent of discharge, u/s 507/120B IPC is hereby, set aside. The case is remanded back to Ld. Trial Court with direction to rehear the arguments on charge after giving due opportunity to the accused as well as the complainant. The Ld. Trial Court, shall also decide the charge u/s 469 IPC. The present petition is accordingly allowed".
6. Pursuant to order dated 17.03.2023, Ld. Trial Court heard the parties and vide order dated 17.12.2024, directed to frame the charge u/s 469 IPC, however, found no material to charge u/s 507/120B IPC.
7. This order dated 17.12.2024 is impugned on the ground that the Ld. Trial Court erred in not looking at the facts that charge u/s 506/507/120B IPC is made out in the material collected during investigation and Ld. Trial Court also failed to consider the fact that Naveen Arya had admitted in his application that he had made call to the petitioner at the instance of the respondent. It is Digitally signed by VIKRAM VIKRAM Date: 2025.04.28 18:05:17 +0530 Ajay Aggarwal Vs. Mahesh Bhola Cr Rev/28/2025 Page 3 of page 5 also stated that it was conspiracy of respondent with Naveen Arya to intimidate the petitioner by making anonymous threats.
8. The respondent has filed reply to the petition that the order does not warrant any interference and that in the revision petition, the petitioner is bringing those facts which are agitated up in previous revision petition and also bringing new offence which was never alleged nor investigated.
9. It is submitted by Ld. counsel for petitioner that although Naveen Arya has not been summoned in this case and is not facing trial but the investigation shows that Naveen Arya had called the petitioner and threatened the petitioner to withdraw the complaint or face dire consequences, therefore, when the petitioner received the call from anonymous person the offence u/s 507 IPC was committed and it was the respondent at whose behest this offence was committed, therefore, the respondent is liable to be charged u/s 507/120B IPC.
10. For conspiracy, there has to be some other person chargesheeted as an accused, although not before the Court for being not arrested or abated. However, when the protest petition against Naveen Arya was dismissed and the revision was also dismissed. The Court has already accepted that there is no case against accused Naveen Arya. This being position qua Naveen Arya no question of conspiracy arises for framing charge against the respondent. AS shown from the chargesheet, it was not the respondent who had made an anonymous call, therefore, even Digitally signed by VIKRAM VIKRAM Date:
2025.04.28 18:05:29 +0530Ajay Aggarwal Vs. Mahesh Bhola Cr Rev/28/2025 Page 4 of page 5 individually also the respondent cannot be charged for offence u/s 507 IPC.
11. So far as, the contention with respect to section 506 IPC is concerned, the accused was never chargesheeted for such offence nor there is any material in the entire chargesheet to show that the accused/ respondent had personally threatened the petitioner. Even otherwise, when the matter was remanded back, in view of the order in CR. Rev. no. 127/2022, the Trial Court was directed specifically to decide on the charge u/s 507/120B IPC and u/s 469 IPC. There was no contention with respect to section 506 IPC in the earlier revision petition.
12. Hence, I find no merit in the revision petition. The present revision petition is therefore, dismissed.
13. File be consigned to record room.
14. TCR Be sent back along with the copy of this order.
Digitally signed by VIKRAM VIKRAM Date:
Date : 28.04.2025 2025.04.28
18:04:36
(Vikram) +0530
ASJ-02/Spl. Judge (NDPS),
North West, Rohini Courts,
Delhi/ 28.04.2025
Dictated on : 28.04.2025 Digitally
signed by
Transcribed on : 28.04.2025 VIKRAM
VIKRAM
checked on : 28.04.2025 Date:
2025.04.28
18:04:29
Signed on : 28.04.2025 (Vikram) +0530
ASJ-02/Spl. Judge (NDPS),
North West, Rohini Courts,
Delhi/ 28.04.2025
Ajay Aggarwal Vs. Mahesh Bhola Cr Rev/28/2025 Page 5 of page 5