Delhi District Court
Shri Praveen Rana vs Commissioner Of Police on 2 November, 2019
1
IN THE COURT OF MS. NEELOFER ABIDA PERVEEN:
ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE : (CENTRAL DISTRICT):
TIS HAZARI COURT:DELHI
Crl. Rev. No. 101/2019
Date of institution: 24.04.2019 Decided on: 02.11.2019
In the matter of :
Shri Praveen Rana
S/o Sh.Jai Singh Rana,
R/O H.No. 359B,
Vill. & p.O. Khera kalan,
Delhi110082 ....Petitioner
Versus
1. Commissioner of Police
Police Head Quarter
I.P. Estate, New Delhi.
2. The S.H.O.
P. S. Subzi Mandi,
Delhi.
3. Smt. Mamta
D/o Late Sh.Vinay Kumar
R/o H.No.412/3, Gali No.1,
Nand Ram Mohalla,
Brahampuri, Delhi53. ....Respondents
CR. No.101/19 Praveen Rana v. Commissioner of Police etc. Page 1
2
JUDGMENT
The petitioner has filed the present revision petition challenging the order dated 18.01.2019 passed by the court of Shri Babru Bhan, M.M. (Central) Delhi in CC No.14483/17 titled as Praveen Rana v. Commission of Police and Ors., vide which the complaint filed by the petitioner has been dismissed.
1. The dismissal of the complaint is assailed on the ground that Ld. Trial court has passed the order without examining the record and without deciding if prima facie case is made out or not and infact acted as the defense lawyer while passing the order and that there is sufficient material for proceeding against the accused. That the complainant is residing at the address mentioned in the Memo of Parties. The complainant is an advocate by profession, practicing at Delhi Courts and was also Oath Commissioner appointed by Delhi High Court. He is practicing from Seat No.92, Bar Room No.1, Tis Hazari Court, Delhi. The seal was allotted by Delhi Bar Assocaition. That the complainant and the respondent No.3 are both Advocate and the respondent is already married along with one Shri Alok CR. No.101/19 Praveen Rana v. Commissioner of Police etc. Page 2 3 Dass. This fact was concealed by respondent no.3 and it came to knowledge of complainant before filing of the complaint and after the other information of respondent no.3, was collected from other sources, then found respondent no.3 was doing illegal activities which comes u/s 406/420/383/495/496 IPC and after the petitioner approached to SHO, Subzi Mandi and filed complaint against respondent no.3 before the Respondent no.3, SHO, P.S.subzi Mandi but no action was taken against the accused no.2 by SHO, Subzi Mandi and thereafter the petitioner filed the complaint case against the accused person. That respondent no.3 had solemnized marriage with one Shri Alok Dass and filed a case against previous husband for bigamy and maintenance u/s 125 Cr.P.C pending adjudication in the Karkardooma Court but the respondent no.3 did not disclose in the declaration that she was married but that she was unmarried. So that the respondent no.3 has given false declaration before the trial court / competent authority. That as per investigation report, the respondent had committed fraud as she had forged and fabricated documents pertaining to the Seat NO.92, Bar Room No.1, Civil Side, Tis Hazari Court, Delhi. The respondent no.3 was married with the complainant on the basis CR. No.101/19 Praveen Rana v. Commissioner of Police etc. Page 3 4 of false and fabricated statement as well as documents which was produced before the competent authority intentionally and deliberately.
2. The matter was listed for clarifications and the petitioner was called upon to explain that as per the complainant there is sufficient material for what offence and what is the fraud / cheating, wrongful gainloss alleged. The petitioner however has relied upon the contents of the complaint and the written submissions already on record and raised no further submissions.
3. Heard.
4. The complaint is instituted on a set of allegations that the complainant and respondent are both Advocates and the respondent is already married with one Sh. Alok Das and the same fact was concealed by the respondent from the complaint and this very fact had come into the knowledge of the complainant recently when a search was made against the respondent pertaining to matters pending or initiated by her against anyone including the complainant. That the respondent is a gold digger and she is in the habit of the same as even after attaining the age of 44+ years of age, the respondent makes CR. No.101/19 Praveen Rana v. Commissioner of Police etc. Page 4 5 targets of younger people for her lust and inducing them to have illicit relations and thus tormenting their lives by calling them to meet her illegal demands of huge amounts of Rs.20 lakh to Rs.30/ lakh and when the same are not met by the younger people like the complainant they are targeted further by initiation of further proceedings by the use of government machinery against her targets. That she started extortion for petty amounts ranging from Rs. 1,000/ to Rs. 5,000/ on many occasions, and investigations are pending against the complainant and as per the investigation report, the respondent had committed fraud as she had forged and fabricated documents pertaining to the seat which is the core foundation of every dispute between the complainant and the respondent. The complainant had filed case pertaining to the seat and the same is pending adjudication and wherein the notice had been issued by respective Civil Court, Tis Hazari Court, Delhi and wherein the next date of hearing is 19.12.2017, matter titled Parveen Rana Vs. Mamta. The complainant was bearing all these things as complainantt spent money more than his capacity in which he has given all the valuables as per the demand of the respondent but the respondent and her family members were CR. No.101/19 Praveen Rana v. Commissioner of Police etc. Page 5 6 not satisfied with the outcome and complainant took personal loans from his relatives apart from spending hefty sums. The complainant is still paying the interest on the said amount as the loan was taken from near and dear relatives. Since, immediately upon the marriage, the respondent were not happy being the fact that sufficient fancy articles were not given to her by the complainant. That since the complainant belongs to a respectable family and since after the marriage, it was obligatory on his part being morally, socially and legally to discharge his marital obligations as a devoted Hindu wedded husband and it was the lesson given by his parents and other relatives to live and bear even in odd circumstances and therefore, he thought that after passing of time the respondent and inlaws would change their behaviour and attitude towards him and he would also lead a happy married life with them. That upon marriage respondent Mamta started misbehaving and quarreling with the complainant and taunted him "that the marriage of the complainant and respondent is just to show to the society and respondent is having illicit relations with other man and you are key to the bank account". That the respondent CR. No.101/19 Praveen Rana v. Commissioner of Police etc. Page 6 7 started quarrel and beatings on petty issues with the complainant after the instigation of respondent's family members without any reason or rhyme. The respondent pressurized the complainant and demanded money on the instigation of other family members of respondent no.3 and when the demands of the respondent were not fulfilled she used to humiliate the complainant. That the respondent always threatened the complainant that after eliminating the complainant she will remarry herself in a family where there will be only one son, so that she can get more money as per desire in order to live luxurious life.
5. I am afraid that the contents of the complaint disclose commission of no offence whatsoever. If he got married to the respondent under some mistake of fact, misconception as to age or previous marital status, the remedy available is under the relevant provisions of personal law. So far as the allegations in respect of forgery for transfer of seat are concerned, investigation has revealed that the seat still stands in the name of the complainant. There is absolutely no material for proceeding against the accused for commission of any offence. The complaint is rightly dismissed. NO ground is made out to CR. No.101/19 Praveen Rana v. Commissioner of Police etc. Page 7 8 interfere with the order impugned. The present revision petition is hereby dismissed.
Trial Court Record be returned with Copy of Judgment. File of revision petition be consigned to record room.
Announced in the open Court on this 2nd day of November 2019 (Neelofer Abida Perveen) Addl. Sessions Judge : (Central) Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi CR. No.101/19 Praveen Rana v. Commissioner of Police etc. Page 8