Delhi District Court
Hari Narain Kumra vs Rakesh Chhabra on 24 February, 2018
IN THE COURT OF SHRI AJAY KUMAR KUHAR
ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE02 : SOUTHEAST :
SAKET COURT, NEW DELHI
IN RE:
CR No. 204258/16 ID No. DLSE010007242016
1. Hari Narain Kumra
S/o Late Shri Man Singh
2. Raju Kumra @ Chander Prakash Kumra
S/o Shri Hari Narain Kumra
Both R/o B241, Greater Kailash,
Part I, New Delhi. .... Revisionists
Versus
Rakesh Chhabra
S/o Late Shri C. L. Chhabra
R/o E101, East of Kailash, New Delhi .... Respondent
Date of Institution : 24.05.2016
Date of arguments : 01.02.2018
Date of Judgment
:
24.02.2018
JUDGMENT
1. This criminal revision petition under section 397 of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short "Cr.P.C.") has been preferred by the CR No. 204258/2016 1 of 11 revisionists against the order dated 14.03.2016 passed by Ms. Archana Beniwal, learned MM, SouthEast whereby a Notice for the offence under section 451/506/34 IPC has been served upon the revisionists under section 251 Cr.P.C.
2. Notice of the revision petition was issued to the respondent and the trial court record was summoned for perusal. The respondent filed a reply to the revision petition. I have heard the arguments advanced by the counsel for the revisionists and the counsel for the respondent and I have perused the record and written submission of the revisionists.
3. Before considering the rival contentions with regard to the legality, regularity and propriety of the impugned order, the facts of the case may be considered.
4. The respondent herein filed a complaint u/s 200 Cr.P.C. for the offences u/s 451/506/34 IPC alleging therein that Neeraj Grover, Rakesh Grover and Shanta Grover had forcibly entered into the property of the complainant and his wife i.e. B31A, Kailash Colony, New Delhi between 01.09.2011 and 04.09.2011 after breaking the locks of the property. A complaint was made with regard to this incident on 11.10.2011 at police station Greater Kailash I. Accordingly, the FIR No. 128/11 for the offences u/s 454/380/448/120B/34 IPC was registered.
5. It is the allegation in the complaint that in the month of June 2012, the revisionists herein namely Hari Narayan Kumra and Raju Kumra CR No. 204258/2016 2 of 11 came to the house of the complainant and threatened him and his family members with dire consequences using abusive language against them and threatened to kill them. This threat was extended to the complainant / respondent to pressurize him for withdrawal of the FIR No. 128/11 which was registered against Neeraj Grover, Rakesh Grover and Shanta Grover. The complainant / respondent had alleged that the revisionists were intending to grab his property and with this intention, they had come to his house and had uttered words which had intimidating effect. This is the allegation in nutshell in the complaint made by the complainant / respondent. He has referred to certain utterances made by the revisionists to him and his family members to show how he was intimidated. It is alleged that the revisionists / accused had said, "is country ka kanoon meri jeb mein hai, hamari to judges se bhi setting hai" and "isee ki wajah se tumhare ghar per kabza ho rakha hai, tumne kisi ka kya bigad liya". The complainant has alleged that the accused / revisionists are acting on the behest of Neeraj Grover, Rakesh Grover and Shanta Grover to grab his property by unlawful means. The complainant / respondent has recorded the conversation between the accused persons / revisionists and has prepared a CD which he annexed with the complaint. He lodged a complaint with regard to the incident which happened in June 2012 on 16.08.2012 but no action was taken and ultimately this complaint was filed on 20.10.2012.
6. It is pertinent to note that complainant also moved an CR No. 204258/2016 3 of 11 application under section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. for direction to the SHO for registration of the FIR. This application was dismissed by the learned MM on 29.05.2013. The complainant / respondent preferred a revision against the said order and the revision petition was also dismissed on 24.09.2013. Thereafter, the complainant led evidence and examined three witnesses. On the basis of the evidence recorded at the presummoning stage, the learned MM vide order dated 20.12.2014 summoned the revisionists as accused no. 1 and 2 for the offences u/s 451/506 IPC read with section 34 IPC (the section wrongly mentioned as 507 IPC in the order sheet). Thereafter, the impugned order was passed on 14.03.2016 wherein the learned MM directed that the accused be served with a Notice for the offences u/s 451/506/34 IPC. The Notice u/s 251 Cr.P.C. was accordingly served on the accused persons on 08.04.2016. The accused / revisionists had pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
7. The revisionists are aggrieved with the order dated 14.03.2016. It is stated in the revision petition that the revisionist no. 1 had stood surety for Smt. Shanta Grover, who was an accused in the case registered on the complaint of the respondent herein. It is stated that Smt. Shanta Grover used to attend satsang at B238, G. K. Part I, just opposite to the house of the revisionists herein with her late husband H. L. Grover and she continued to attend this satsang even after his death. It is further stated that the complainant had made a complaint to the police. However, the police had CR No. 204258/2016 4 of 11 opined that no case is made out on these allegations which are made in the present case in the court. It is submitted that the respondent himself had called the revisionists at his house to help in arriving at a compromise with Smt. Shanta Grover. Therefore, the allegations which are made in the complaint are absolutely false and without any basis. It is stated that the impugned order is not legally sustainable and is based on surmises and conjunctures without reference to the facts of the case. It is submitted that in the presummoning evidence only complainant has examined himself, his wife and son who are interested witnesses and tutored witnesses. It is submitted that trial court has ignored the fact that in the CD nothing has come out to attract any penal provision to justify the Notice u/s 251 Cr.P.C. It is further submitted that in the CD, the transcript of which is placed on record and considered by the trial court, there was no threat or any criminal act on the part of the revisionists. It is submitted that this evidence has not been considered in right perspective by the trial court as the certificate under section 65B Evidence Act was not attached. It is further submitted that the complainant has not examined Ms. Amrita Chhabra, who was allegedly threatened by the revisionists on 17.06.2012. Hence, it is submitted that there was no ground for service of Notice to put the accused to trial for the offences u/s 451/506/34 IPC.
8. In reply filed by the respondent, he has referred to the statement of CW1, CW2 and CW3 in which there are allegations of CR No. 204258/2016 5 of 11 extending threat to the complainant and his family members. It is stated that the CD was a sting operation and therefore, it was not expected to have everything recorded there. It is stated that due to the threat and the intimidation by the revisionists, the respondent has shifted his residence to Gurgaon and he has sent his daughter abroad for studies.
9. The revisionists have filed written submissions as well wherein the grounds taken in the revision petition have been reiterated. They have referred to certain judgments in the written submissions to support their arguments that firstly, the evidence if any contained in the CD is not admissible and secondly, even after considering the entire evidence, no case is made out against the revisionists.
10. The submissions of the revisionists are two fold, first the evidence on record does not disclose commission of any offence. Secondly, they have pleaded false implication stating that the revisionist no. 1 had stood surety for Smt. Shanta Grover in a case registered against her and therefore, he along with revisionist no. 2 have been implicated in the case. The revisionists are aggrieved with the impugned order claiming that the trial court has not appreciated the statement of the complainant and witnesses examined at presummoning stage.
11. The revisionists have been summoned for the offences under section 451 IPC and 506 IPC read with section 34 IPC. They have been served with a Notice for the commission of these offences vide the CR No. 204258/2016 6 of 11 impugned order. Section 451 IPC provide punishment for a house trespass committed in order to commit an offence punishable with imprisonment. Section 506 IPC provide punishment for criminal intimidation which has been defined in section 503 IPC. The necessary ingredient to invoke section 506 IPC would be a threat to cause any injury to person, reputation of property of another person with the intention to either cause an alarm to that person or to cause that person to do any act which he is not legally bound to do or omit to do any act which that person is legally entitled to do, as the means of avoiding the execution of such threat.
12. In the present case, the allegation levelled against the revisionists is that they had committed a house trespass by entering the house of complainant to commit the offence of criminal intimidation and they threatened the complainant and his family members and asked him to settle and withdraw the complaint against Neeraj Grover, Rakesh Grover and Shanta Grover, which had led to registration of the FIR against them. For the offence under section 506 IPC, the intention of the accused must be to cause an alarm and the complainant must bring on record the material to show that the intention of the accused was to cause alarm. Mere threat by itself will not amount to an offence unless such threat was capable of causing alarm. The gist of the offence u/s 506 IPC, therefore, is the effect which the threat is intended to have upon mind of the person threatened (Ref. Amitabh Vs. NCT of Delhi 2000 Crl.LJ 4772 and Amulya Kumar CR No. 204258/2016 7 of 11 Behera Vs. Nagabhana Behera @ Nabina 1995 Crl.LJ 3559).
13. The counsel for the respondent has referred to the statement of CW1, CW2 and CW3 on the basis of which the revisionists were summoned and Notice was served upon them. He also referred to the transcript of the CD which was prepared by the complainant when the revisionists had come to his house. The prominent utterances made by the revisionists before the complainant are as under :
(i) is country ka kanoon meri jeb mein hai, hamari to judges se bhi setting hai.
(ii) isee ki wajah se tumhare ghar per kabza ho rakha hai, tumne kisi ka kya bigad liya.
14. The English translation transcript of the CD which is placed on record also refer to similar conversation where the revisionist no. 1 has said, "now you tell me, whether you want to settle or not. It is my experience that criminal cases of civil nature are not decided before 2025 years". It is also stated by him that "first you settle with me then I will ask them to beg pardon from you and will get the settlement done". It is also stated by him, "it is happening like that only. Kapoor sahab had given the keys at 11 Udai Park, the registry is lying in the bank and he was killed by neighbours through an accident by truck. These days it is happening like this only." The revisionist no. 2 has said, "I can introduce to such judges of Supreme Court who take money / bribe. A judge is my relative. I will take money from you CR No. 204258/2016 8 of 11 and will give it to him and will get your work done".
15. If these utterances are seen in the background of the case, the intention to cause alarm can be logically inferred. There is a dispute of the complainant with Neeraj Grover, Rakesh Grover and Shanta Grover with regard to property bearing no. B31, Kailash Colony, New Delhi. The complainant has lodged an FIR against them. If the revisionists had no concern with the issue, there was no occasion for them to visit the house of the complainant and to show in a very subtle manner their contacts and extend a veiled threat which is evident from their utterances. So to say that the offence u/s 506 IPC is not made out will not be correct. Although the veracity and truthfulness of the allegation made against them is a subject matter of the trial.
16. The revisionists had taken a plea that no prima facie case was made out and reliance was placed on Satish Mehra Vs. NCT of Delhi AIR 2013 Supreme Court 396 and P. Vijayan Vs. State of Kerala 2010 1 SCC (Crl.) 1488. I have considered the judgments but they are not contrary to the proposition that at the stage of service of Notice under 251 Cr.P.C., the court has to see only a prima facie case, the material on the record can be looked upon only to ascertain whether there is a justification for service of Notice for any offence. At this stage, the adequacy of the evidence for conviction is not adjudged.
17. It was argued that the CD on which reliance has been placed is CR No. 204258/2016 9 of 11 not supported by a certificate u/s 65B of Indian Evidence Act. The reference was made to the judgment of Harpal Singh Vs. State of Punjab. As observed above, at this stage, only a prima facie case is seen whether the evidence will be sufficient for conviction is not to be considered at this stage. Moreover, the oral statement of the witnesses cannot be ignored at this stage.
18. The counsel for the revisionists had also argued that the impugned order is not sustainable because the learned MM has made observation that the CD and the transcript does not show that the accused had threatened the complainant of dire consequences or threatened to kill them. I think this observation of the learned MM did not appreciate the transcript in a correct perspective in the background of the facts in which these utterances were made. The MM has relied upon the ocular evidence of the witnesses examined which was justified in the present case.
19. The impugned order in the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the material on the record does not suffer from any illegality or irregularity. The revision against the impugned order therefore stands dismissed. However, it may be noted that any observations made in this order are only for the purpose of ascertaining the legality of the impugned order and shall have no binding on the Magistrate while deciding the criminal complaint at the final stage.
20. A copy of the order along with trial court record be also sent to CR No. 204258/2016 10 of 11 the trial court concerned.
21. Revision file be consigned to record room.
Announced in the open (AJAY KUMAR KUHAR)
court today i.e. 24.02.2018 Addl. Sessions Judge02
SouthEast, Saket Courts, New Delhi
CR No. 204258/2016 11 of 11