Delhi District Court
Ms. Alpana Tripathi vs Sh. Hariom Shankar @ Shyam Tiwari on 2 August, 2022
IN THE COURT OF SHRI ANIL KUMAR
ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE - 03 : SOUTH DISTRICT
SAKET COURT : NEW DELHI
Cr Rev No. 357/19
CNR no. DLST01-006505-2019
1. MS. ALPANA TRIPATHI
W/O SH. SUBODH TRIPATHI
R/O E-70, E-71 KHASRA NO.368
JAWAHAR PARK, KHANPUR
NEW DELHI-110062
2. MS.KIRAN TIWARI
W/O SH. RAJA TIWARI
C-31, CHANDER NAGAR,
GHAZIABAD-201011
.....Revisionists
Versus
1. SH. HARIOM SHANKAR @ SHYAM TIWARI
S/O SH. RADHA KISHAN
R/O E-70A (0NE ROOM ONLY),FRONT PORTION
JAWAHAR PARK. KHANPUR, NEW DELHI-110 062.
ALSO AT
R/O. VILLAGE KUNETHA BLOCK MAHEWA,
DISTRICT ETAWAH, U.P-206124.
2. SMT. CHANDRAWATI
W/O SH. KALYAN
R/O.GUNNAUR, DISTRICT SAMBHAL , U.P.
ALSO W/O.SHYAM TIWARI S/O.RADHAKRISHNA
@ HARIOM SHANKAR S/0.RADHAKRISHNA
CA No.357/2019
Ms Alpana Tripathi & Ors Vs. Hariom Shankar @ Shyam Tiwari & Ors.
Page no. 1 of 8
3. PRAMOD YADAV
S/O.KALYAN
R/O GUNNAUR, DISTRICT SAMBHAL , U.P.
BOTH ALSO R/O. E-70A (0NE ROOM ONLY),
FRONT PORTION, JAWAHAR PARK. KHANPUR
NEW DELHI-110 062.
... Respondents
Date of Institution : 21.09.2019
Date of Arguments : 23.07.2022
Date of judgment : 02.08.2022
JUDGMENT
1. Present criminal revision is filed under Section 397/400 Cr.P.C against order dated 03.06.2019 passed in Criminal Complaint No. 2483 of 2019 whereby Ld.MM dismissed the application filed on behalf of revisionists u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C.
2.1 Brief facts of the case, as set up in the revision, are that respondents no. 1 to 3 in perfect collusion and conspiracy with one another with evil design and ulterior motive to grab the property of revisionist no.1 have first carried out a series of forgery for the purpose of cheating, used the forged documents as genuine for filing of suit in the court and thereafter laid their claim in the property of the revisionist no.1.
2.2 On 16th September, 2018, when revisionists along with their mother asked the respondent no.1 to vacate the servant room respondent no.1 along CA No.357/2019 Ms Alpana Tripathi & Ors Vs. Hariom Shankar @ Shyam Tiwari & Ors.
Page no. 2 of 8 with respondent no. 2 started abusing and beating revisionists and threatened the revisionists to implicate their husbands in false case of rape and molestation.
2.3 On 19.09.2018 respondent no.1 to 3 physically assaulted and molested revisionist no.2 and her sister Neetu Pandey and inflicted injury on them pursuant to which complaint was lodged with P.S. Neb Sarai.
2.4 On 02.11.2018 revisionists employed a guard to protect their passage and the kitchen garden from unauthorized and illegal grabbing by the respondent no.1 to 3 but the respondents started abusing revisionist and her guard by using slangs and invectives and extended threat to falsely implicate them with rape charges/POCSO charges in full public view.
2.5 On 01.01.2019 when revisionist no.1 along with revisionist no.2 and their family members went to the plot, respondent no.1 first approached revisionist no.2 in a premeditated plan and asked her to come to his servant quarter to talk, and then respondent no.1 outraged her modesty by pulling her into the servant quarter with the help of respondent no. 2 who started beating her and then respondent no. 1 poured kerosene on her and tried to burn her and complaint was made on 04.01.2019.
2.6 SHO warned the revisionists to go for a settlement with respondent no.1 to 3 failing which he will forcibly take over possession by planting another set of ownership documents and therefore, he had retained the ownership papers of all the plots E-70A, E-71 & E-70, Jawahar Park and at CA No.357/2019 Ms Alpana Tripathi & Ors Vs. Hariom Shankar @ Shyam Tiwari & Ors.
Page no. 3 of 8 all material times threatened revisionists to implicate their husbands in false cases of attempt to rape and POCSO charges.
2.7 On 27.01.2019 the respondent no.1 to 3 came to the kitchen garden and intentionally threw a brick piece at the revisionists which hit revisionist no.2 on the backside of her head and due to fear of further assault by respondent no.1 to 3, revisionists and their family members ran away and revisionist no.2 had to be taken to hospital.
2.8 Revisionists lodged complaints on 04.01.2019, 05.12.18, 03.11.2018, 02.11.2018 against the respondents, at Police Station Neb Sarai, New Delhi.
3. Revisionists filed a complaint u/s. 156(3) r/w Section 200 Cr.P.C. seeking directions for S.H.O, P.S. Neb Sarai to register F.I.R. against the respondent no. 1, 2 and 3 for the offence committed by them in perfect conspiracy and collusion with one another u/s 354, 509, 506, 307, 420, 468, 471,406 and 120B IPC.
4. Vide order dt 03.06.2019 Ld.MM dismissed the application filed by revisionists u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C.
5. Being aggrieved by impugned order dt.3.6.2019 revisionists preferred the present revision petition.
CA No.357/2019Ms Alpana Tripathi & Ors Vs. Hariom Shankar @ Shyam Tiwari & Ors.
Page no. 4 of 8
6. Ld. Counsel for revisionists has submitted that Ld. MM failed to understand as to who is the complainant and why the complaint is being filed and for what offence and passed order without application of mind. Present complaint never emanated from any property dispute as perceived by the Ld. MM and the said presumptions have been made at the instance of the police facilitating the perpetrator of crime to grab the property of the petitioners by forging and fabricating the documents. Ld. MM has relied heavily on the status report which is skewed against the revisionists deliberately to save the skin of respondent no. 1 to 3 who are hand in glove with the police. Revisonist no.1 is the recorded owner of the property, therefore the question of land dispute with any person does not arise. Ld. MM has rejected the complaint of the revisionist which discloses cognizable offence notwithstanding the fact that respondents no. 1 to 3 who are the prime accused have forged, fabricated and manufactured documents in respect of the property with the active aid, conspiracy and consent of the SHO and therefore at the behest of police resorting to such violence. Ld. MM has unmindfully assumed the fact that revisionist knows the accused person hence there is no need for registration of FIR. Impugned order is illegal as the respondent no. 1, 2 and 3 are trying to grab the valuable property by going to the extent of setting on fire the revisionist and her sister and inflicting physical injury time and again.
7. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the submissions of Ld.Counsel for revisionists. Trial Court record perused.
CA No.357/2019Ms Alpana Tripathi & Ors Vs. Hariom Shankar @ Shyam Tiwari & Ors.
Page no. 5 of 8
8. By way of present revision petition, revisionist has challenged the impugned order dt 3.6.2019. In the instant case, the revisionists has alleged offence of forgery for the purpose of cheating, use of forged documents as genuine, use of criminal force with intend to outrage the modesty of revisionist and threats to implicate male members of family of revisionist to implicate in false rape charges.
9. On the application u/s 156(3) CrPC moved by revisionists before Ld.Trial Court, Action Taken Report was called by the Ld.MM. As per the ATR, the property no. E70, Jawahar Park, Khanpur, New Delhi is a plot measuring approx. 500 sq. yds and was purchased by Mr. Brij Bhushan Sahni in the year 1992. Mr. Sahni then sold a plot measuring 200 sq. yd., to Late Mr. A.P.Singh Tiwari in the year 1997 , and kept the remaining 300 sq.yd. ,plot for himself. Mr. A.P.Singh Tiwari appointed his relative Mr. Shyam Tiwari and his wife, i.e. respondent no.2/Mrs. Chandrawati as caretakers of the property no. E88, Jawahar Park, Khanpur ,New Delhi. Respondent no.2 Mrs. Chanderwati along with her husband Mr. Shyam Tiwari has been living in a servant quarter constructed at the property ever since, while the rest of the plot lies vacant. After the demise of Mr. A.P.Singh Tiwari, the property now belongs to his legal heir i.e. , his wife Mrs. Indira Devi and six daughters and son in laws. Now, Mrs. Indira and her daughters want to construct their house at the property and has asked respondent no.2 and her husband Mr. Shyam Tiwari to vacate the plot, however the complainants are not inclined to do so.
10. Ld.Trial Court dismissed the application filed by the complainant/petitioners u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C observing that "all the evidence is CA No.357/2019 Ms Alpana Tripathi & Ors Vs. Hariom Shankar @ Shyam Tiwari & Ors.
Page no. 6 of 8 within the reach and knowledge of the complainant and nothing new is to be collected for which the assistance of the police agency is required. Even the identity of accused persons is known to complainant."
11. In the present case I find that allegations made in present petition or the complaint filed before Ld.Magistrate, regarding forgery and fabrication of documents are very unspecific. Neither detail of any document has been mentioned nor copy of the same has been filed before the Ld.Magistrate or before this Court. Only on the basis of voter I Card and Adhaar Card of the person living at place cannot be implied that he has forged or fabricated any document.
12. In so far as remaining allegations are concerned this Court is in agreement with the observation or the finding made by Ld.Trial Court that the evidences in regard to those allegations of assault or maltreatment are within the reach and control of revisionists and for that purpose no police assistance is required.
13. As such, I do not find any infirmity or irregularity in the finding of Ld.Trial Court that there is no ground to exercise jurisdiction u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. In the facts and circumstances of case indulgence of police in the matter is not required.
14. In view of above discussion, there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order warranting any interference by this court.
CA No.357/2019Ms Alpana Tripathi & Ors Vs. Hariom Shankar @ Shyam Tiwari & Ors.
Page no. 7 of 8 Revision petition is dismissed.
Revision file be consigned to record room.
Copy of this order alongwith TCR be sent back to trial court order.
Digitally signed by ANIL ANIL KUMAR
KUMAR Date:
Announced in open Court on 2.8.22. 2022.08.06
10:35:05 +0530
(Anil Kumar)
Addl. Sessions Judge-03(South)
Saket Courts/New Delhi/ 2.8.22
CA No.357/2019
Ms Alpana Tripathi & Ors Vs. Hariom Shankar @ Shyam Tiwari & Ors.
Page no. 8 of 8