Delhi District Court
Karan Kukreja vs State on 19 December, 2024
IN THE COURT OF MS. GEETANJALI
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE (FTC)- 03; SOUTH EAST
DISTRICT SAKET COURTS: DELHI
CA No. 418/2019
CNR : DLSE01-006321-2019
Shri Karan Kukreja
S/o Shri Mohan Kukreja
R/o A-322, Defence Colony,
New Delhi - 110024 ....... Appellant
Versus
1. State
2. Mrs. Seema Kukreja
W/o Shri Sunder Kukreja
3. Shri Sunder Kukreja
S/o Late Shri Dhera Ram Kukreja
Both are resident of 21, Poorvi Marg,
Vasant Vihar, New Delhi - 110057.
....... Respondents
Date of Institution : 17.08.2019
Order reserved on : 18.12.2024
Order delivered on : 19.12.2024
JUDGMENT
1. Vide this judgment, I shall decide the present appeal alongwith application u/s 5 of Limitation Act which assails the CA No. 418/2019 Karan Kukreja Vs. State & Ors. PAGE NO. 1 OF 8 order dated 29.06.2019 (hereinafter referred to as "the impugned order") passed by Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate, South East District, Saket Courts, New Delhi in Misc. Crl. no. 73/2019 whereby Ld. Magistrate took cognizance of offence u/s. 182 IPC against respondent no. 2 i.e. accused Seema Kukreja instead of initiating inquiry u/s. 340 Cr.PC against her and her husband i.e. respondent no. 3 Shri Sundar Kukreja.
2. The brief facts of the case necessary for the disposal of the present appeal are that appellant moved an application u/s. 340 Cr.PC read with section 195 Cr.PC against respondent nos. 2 and 3 for committing offences u/s.193/209/211/34 IPC on the grounds that they had caused initiation of criminal proceedings against the appellant by giving false evidence and claims before the Court with lodging of an FIR bearing 1311/2015, PS Amar Colony u/s.354/506/34 IPC. It is averred that the appellant is a businessman and son of Shri Mohan Kukreja who was a partner of the firm M/s. D.R. Kukreja and Co. which owns and runs "M Cinemas" (earlier known as Sapna Cinema) situated at East of Kailash and respondents no. 2 and 3 Seema Kukreja and her husband Shri Sundar Kukreja are his real uncle and aunt ( chacha and chachi). Since there were several property disputes between the father of the appellant and the respondents, respondents started implicating the appellant and his family members in false cases including FIR no.1311/2015, PS Amar Colony with sole intention to pressurize him and his family members to part away with the property inherited by them from the family business. In that series on CA No. 418/2019 Karan Kukreja Vs. State & Ors. PAGE NO. 2 OF 8 19.12.2015 both the respondents entered the premises of M Cinemas, being the property of the partnership firm and assaulted the sister of the appellant by pushing, molesting and threatening her. On her complaint FIR bearing no. 1310/2015, PS Amar Colony u/s. 354/354-B/506/34 IPC was registered against the respondent no. 3 Sunder Kukreja and subsequently charge-sheet u/s. 354/354- D/506/34 IPC was filed wherein the charge has been framed against him. Per contra cancellation report was filed in FIR bearing no. 1311/2015, PS Amar Colony which was accepted by the Court on 10.05.2019 since no incriminating evidence was found against the appellant Karan Kukreja. It is further alleged by the appellant that the aforesaid FIR was filed as the counter blast to FIR no.1310/2015 registered against respondent no. 3 Sunder Kukreja with malicious intent. Respondent no. 2 Seema Kukreja had purposely filed a false complaint against the appellant on which FIR no.1311/2015 was registered despite the fact that he was not even present in the premises of M Cinemas on the date of incident i.e. 19.12.2015. In view of the same proceedings u/s. 340 Cr.PC read with section 195(1)b CrPC be initiated against respondent nos. 2 and 3 since the accused, with intention to give false evidence, initiated criminal complaint against the appellant despite having knowledge of being it to be false.
2.1 The present application was accompanied with the application moved by the IO for initiating proceedings u/s. 182 Cr.PC against respondent no. 2 i.e. Seema Kukreja for submitting false information to the police with intention to cause injury and CA No. 418/2019 Karan Kukreja Vs. State & Ors. PAGE NO. 3 OF 8 annoyance to the appellant.
3. After hearing of final arguments, the Ld. Trial Court took cognizance of offence u/s. 182 IPC against respondent no. 2 i.e. accused Seema Kukreja. Aggrieved by said judgment, the present appeal has been filed by the appellant/complainant.
4. The impugned order has been challenged on the grounds that the Ld. Trial Court failed to assign any reason for not initiating an inquiry and make a finding as envisaged u/s. 340 read with section 195(1)(b) of the Cr.PC in order to institute appropriate criminal proceedings against respondent no. 2 and 3 for having committed offence u/s. 193, 209 and 211 read with section 34 IPC; that the Ld. MM erred in not allowing the application of the appellant in as much as the same very Magistrate while dismissing the protest petition filed by the respondent no. 2, came to the conclusion that she made false statement in her complaint and as such accepted the Cancellation report filed by the police hence the Ld. MM cannot come to a different conclusion in the impugned order than from the order dated 10.05.2019; that Ld. Magistrate erred in not taking cognizance of the fact that respondent nos. 2 and 3 have made several false complaint against the appellant and his family members and closure reports have been filed in several cases and accordingly, the Ld. Magistrate should have initiated an inquiry and made a finding as envisaged u/s. 340 read with section 195(1)(b) Cr.PC for having committed offences u/s. 193/209/211/34 IPC; that the Ld. MM erred in not appreciating the fact that the offence u/s.
CA No. 418/2019 Karan Kukreja Vs. State & Ors. PAGE NO. 4 OF 8 193 IPC covers the intentional giving of false evidence i.e. a person must make a statement which is either false to the knowledge or belief of the maker or which the maker does not believe to be true, in any stage of a judicial proceedings when the person is legally bound by oath to state the truth; that the Ld. Magistrate erred in not appreciating the fact that the allegations made by R-2 in collusion with R-3 before the police as well as Court were false to their knowledge and same was filed with malicious intention of causing injury and annoyance to the appellant and constitutes two separate set of offences i.e. one before the police and other before Ld. Magistrate; that Ld. Magistrate did not appreciate the fact that R-2 in collusion with R-3 raised false allegations against the appellant with a malafide intent of causing injury to him and same was a counterblast. In view of the same, it has been prayed the impugned order dated 29.06.2019 passed by Ld. Trial Court be set aside to the extent that it does not make any finding u/s. 340 read with section 195(1)(b) Cr.PC and direct the initiation of inquiry and make a finding as envisaged under section 341 read with section 340 and section 195(1)(b)Cr.PC in order to institute appropriate criminal proceedings against the respondents for having committed offence punishable u/s. 193/209/211/34 IPC.
5. Notice of the present appeal was issued to the accused/respondents. Respondent nos. 2 and 3 filed detailed reply taking preliminary objections to the effect that respondent no. 2 filed a complaint against the appellant and others on the basis of which FIR no. 1311/2015, PS Amar Colony u/s. 354/506/341 IPC CA No. 418/2019 Karan Kukreja Vs. State & Ors. PAGE NO. 5 OF 8 was registered wherein her statement u/s. 164 Cr.PC was also recorded; that the IO/SHO did not record the statement of eye witnesses i.e. respondent no. 3, Smt. Chander Kukreja and Smt. Sapna Batra; that the IO filed false Cancellation report u/s.173 Cr.PC in the Court of Ld. MM on the basis of false plea of alibi of the appellant; that on 21.04.2017 the respondent no. 2 filed a protest petition before the Ld. MM and IO/SHO filed reply on 26.05.2018 and sought action u/s. 182 Cr.PC against the respondent no. 2; that the Ld. MM accepted the Cancellation report vide order dated 10.05.2019 which was challenged by respondent no. 2 in revision petition no. 442/2019 titled as 'Seema Kukreja Vs. State & Anr.'; that the appellant filed application u/s. 340 Cr.PC before the Ld. MM on 30.05.2019 which was dismissed vide order dated 29.06.2019; that the application u/s. 340 Cr.PC of the appellant is nothing but to exert pressure on the respondent no. 2 so that she may not seek any legal remedy against order dated 10.05.2019 vide which Cancellation report was accepted; that thereafter appellant filed present appeal on 16.08.2019 read with application u/s. 5 of the Limitation Act which is totally misconceived and meritless; that during hearing of the present appeal, appellant deliberately did not bring to the knowledge of the Court that there was a delay in filing of the present appeal for which his application u/s. 5 of the Limitation Act is also pending; that the appellant dishonestly misguided and misled the Court and got issued notice to the respondents without condonation of delay in filing the present appeal; that the application for condonation of delay is totally CA No. 418/2019 Karan Kukreja Vs. State & Ors. PAGE NO. 6 OF 8 misleading and misconceived since the appellant did not mention the number of days of delay in filing the present appeal. In view of the same it has been prayed that present appeal be dismissed.
6. I have heard the ld. Counsel for the appellant, Ld. Addl. PP for the State/R-1 as well as ld. Counsel for respondents and perused the record of the Trial Court as well as the impugned order dated 29.06.2019.
7. This is an appeal against the order dated 29.06.2019 vide which Ld. Magistrate took cognizance of offence u/s. 182 IPC against respondent no. 2 instead of initiating inquiry u/s. 340 Cr.PC against her and her husband i.e. respondent no. 3. The story goes this way. A complaint was made by respondent no. 2 Seema Kukreja on 19.12.2015 on the basis of which FIR bearing no.1311/2015, u/s.354/506/34 IPC, PS Amar Colony was registered against appellant Karan Kukreja. After completion of investigation, the IO filed Cancellation report and not only that, also recommended initiation of inquiry u/s. 182 IPC against the respondents no. 2 and 3. Against the said Cancellation report, protest petition was filed by the respondents no. 2 and 3 which was dismissed vide order dated 10.05.2019 and Cancellation report was accepted. Thereafter the application u/s. 340 Cr.PC was moved by the appellant for initiation of criminal proceedings against respondent nos. 2 and 3 for giving false evidence and claims before the Court despite having knowledge of being it to be false. The said application was disposed off by the Ld. Trial Court vide impugned order dated 29.06.2019 wherein the Ld. Trial Court took CA No. 418/2019 Karan Kukreja Vs. State & Ors. PAGE NO. 7 OF 8 cognizance of the offence u/s. 182 IPC against the respondent no. 2. It is pertinent to note here that the order dated 10.05.2019 vide which Cancellation report was accepted and protest petition was dismissed in FIR bearing no. 1311/2015, PS Amar Colony, was challenged vide revision petition bearing no. 442/2019 which was allowed by this Court vide order dated 27.11.2024 and consequently order dated 10.05.2019 was set aside. It was on the basis of the order dated 10.05.2019 only did the appellant moved an application u/s. 340 Cr.PC. However when the root of the matter no longer hold good in view of the judgment dated 27.11.2024, all the ancillary proceedings are automatically set aside and one of that ancillary proceeding is cognizance of the offence u/s. 182 IPC against the respondent no. 2. In that eventuality no scope remain left for initiation of criminal proceedings u/s. 340 Cr.PC against respondents no. 2 and 3. The appeal is accordingly disposed off.
8. Copy of this order be sent to the Ld. Trial court alongwith trial court record. File of the present appeal be consigned to record room.
Typed to the direct dictation and announced in the open court on this 19th day of December, 2024 (Geetanjali) Addl. Session Judge (FTC)-03 South East District,Saket Courts New Delhi/19.12.2024 CA No. 418/2019 Karan Kukreja Vs. State & Ors. PAGE NO. 8 OF 8