Delhi District Court
Mrs. Simi Sood vs Mr. Arvind Nagpal on 9 September, 2016
IN THE COURT OF SH. RAKESH KUMAR1
ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE/SPECIAL JUDGE (NDPS)
WEST DISTRICT, TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
CR No.56009/2016
Mrs. Simi Sood,
W/o Dr. Vinay Sood,
R/o H62, Shivaji Park,
Punjabi Bagh, New Delhi. .....Appellant.
Versus
Mr. Arvind Nagpal,
Manager, S.M. Arya Public School,
R/o H113, Shivaji Prk,
West Punjabi Bagh, New Delhi.
Office address:
Manager, S.M. Arya Public School,
Road No.45, West Punjabi Bagh,
New Delhi - 110026. .....Respondent.
: J U D G M E N T :
1. Aggrieved by the order dated 30.09.2014 passed by Ld. MM01, West District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in a case bearing CC No.751/1 titled as "Arvind Kumar Nagpal Vs. Simi Sood" whereby Ms. Simi Sood (revisionist herein) has been summoned to face the trial for the offence punishable U/s 211 IPC, the revisionist has preferred the instant petition on 23.12.2014 interalia praying for setting aside the impugned order for summoning the accused (revisionist herein).
2. Brief facts of the case (as recorded by Ld. Trial Court) are that the complainant Sh. Arvind Kumar Nagpal (respondent herein) is a Manager in S.M. Arya Public School, road no.45, Punjabi Bagh, New Delhi110026 and is one of the members of the managing Committee of the School and accused Ms. Simi Sood (revisionist herein) is a married lady working at (Simi Sood Vs. Arvind Nagpal) (CR No.56009/2016) Page No.1 of pages 14 S.M. Arya Public School, road no.45, Punjabi Bagh, New Delhi110026 in the capacity of VicePrincipal. Accused has instituted false and frivolous complaints against the complainant to DCP, West District. One police officer namely SI Shiv Kumar of PS Punjabi Bagh came to School and had shown an email dated 18.09.20013 sent by Ms. Simi Sood from email account to DCP (W) therein making allegations that Manager Arvind Napgal had abused and threatened her at about 2.20 PM on 17.09.2013 in the school and he had also made derogatory remarks and outraged her modesty. The said SI Shiv Kumar also shown a written complaint sent by Ms. Simi Sood to DCP (West) and told the complainant that both email as well as written complaint were entrusted to him for inquiry. The complainant read the email as well as the written complaint. SI Shiv Kumar did not give a copy of the email or the written complaint to the complainant. As per the written complaint, when she entered the Manager room, Manager Arvind Nagpal shouted at her and used verbal remarks "Kamini aur Zalil Aurat". He threatened her with dire consequences used derogatory remarks and outraged her modesty. As per Arvind Nagapl, all the allegations contained in email and written complaint are false and after thought. Earlier an FIR dated 07.06.2013 U/s 380/120B IPC bearing no.238/2013 was registered on the complaint of Arya Samaj, Punjabi Bagh against husband and fatherinlaw of the accused (revisionist herein) for conniving to usurp the management of Arya Samaj by wrongful means after committing the theft at the office of Arya Samaj Punjabi Bagh West (Regd.), New Delhi. In a counter blast, the accused made the aforesaid false complaints and the true facts are that on 17.09.2013 Arvind Nagpal was having an official predecided meeting fixed for 2.15 PM at S.M. Arya Public School on the day of the incident. Meeting was being conducted in the complainant's office, where two ladies Ms. Shikha and Divya Sharma were sitting. Further at the same time, the Principal Mrs. Anjali Kohli and Ms. Rashmi Bhatia, the (Simi Sood Vs. Arvind Nagpal) (CR No.56009/2016) Page No.2 of pages 14 clerk who also has an ofice in the same room joined in. The school closed at 1.40 PM and Mrs. Simi Sood had marked her attendance for departure at 1.45 PM and had left the school premises as per attendance register. At 2.28 PM, Mrs. Simi Sood, rushed in the manager's office without seeking prior permission or knocking the door. Soon as she entered the office, she said "PICHALE 10 DINO SE JO KUCH HO RAHA HAI, JO MEMO DIYE JA RAHE HAIN, USME MERA KOI FAULT NAHI HAI UNNECESSARY MERE KO HARASS KIYA JA RAHA HAI, MAI DEKH LUNGI SABKO" and left the room in 20 seconds. The manager did not utter even a single word and was sitting having the back towards the door. As per the footage, Mrs. Simi Sood entered the office of the Manager at 2:28:29. She in fact threatened with consequences for issuing Memos and advisory notes by the school against her unethical work and arbitrary behaviour. The complainant wrote a letter on the same day to the Chairman of the Managing Committee complaining and enumerating the incident and asking for security arrangement and Chairman replied to this letter on the next day i.e. 18.09.20013 advising the complainant to arrange for security personnel around the room. On 19.09.2013 at 10.30 PM a Management Committee meeting was held in which the Members of the Managing Committee were of the view that strict action should be taken against Mrs. Simi Sood, Vice Principal and a show cause notice should be issued and on 21.09.2013, a complaint of intimation of gross misconduct and malicious misbehaviour by Mrs. Simi Sood was made to Sh. Tejinder Luthra, Joint Commissioner of Police (South Western Range), Delhi Police by the management of S.M. Arya Public School informing her arbitrary behaviour, unsatisfactory performance, unreasonable misconduct towards management of the school including the said incident of 17.09.2013. On 28.09.2013, SI Shiv Kumar visted the school and inquired from complainant, Mrs. Rashmi Bhatia clerk, Mrs. Anjali Kohli Principal, Mrs. Divya Sharma, Ms. Shikha and guard Jaswant Singh and asked all of (Simi Sood Vs. Arvind Nagpal) (CR No.56009/2016) Page No.3 of pages 14 them to write down the incident and give it to him. He also took pen drive of CCTV footage of the incident. All the aforesaid persons reiterated the actual incident and the statements and CCTV footage showed the falsity of allegations levelled by the accused (revisionist herein). Ld. Trial Court after getting recorded the presummoning evidence of complainant as CW1 and other witnesses as CW2 to CW8, hearing the submissions advanced by Ld. Counsel for complainant, passed the impugned order dated 30.09.2014 which is being assailed by the revisionist on the following grounds:
(i). The respondent herein has been harassing, humiliating and insulting the revisionist with his malafide intention to cover up the irregularities in the school management.
(ii). The revisionist had found that certain irregularities are taking place in school and school was working contrary to CBSE rules and guidelines.
(iii). There is a mismanagement in the school. The school was indulged in some illegal activities such as enrolling the students of Commercial Institutes like FIIT JEE in Supreme and Pinnacle of IX, X, XI and XII classes and also from the Commercial Institute of Narayana. The school Management was completely and regularly ignoring the welfare of the school students. The revisionist pointed out these irregularities in her ACR report submitted to the Directorate of Education, NCT, Delhi, through the principal on 22.08.2013. The revisionist after mentioning the irregularities in her ACR was declared the worst teacher of the school. The Management was completely annoyed with the (Simi Sood Vs. Arvind Nagpal) (CR No.56009/2016) Page No.4 of pages 14 revisionist and started harassing her for one or other reason. The behaviour of the School Management, especially of the respondent, became worst, vindicative, malafide and insulting.
(iv). The revisionist was informed by the Principal to meet the respondent on 17.09.2013 after the school is over. The revisionist went to meet the respondent at around 2.20 PM. The revisionist was abused, insulted, humiliated and threatened with dire consequences by the respondent Sh.
Arvind Nagpal. The respondent used derogatory remarks and outraged the modesty of the revisionist in filthy language.
(v). On 18.09.20013 at around 3.27 PM, revisionist wrote an email to DCP West and Parivartan Delhi Police by requesting that necessary and immediate action should be taken against the respondent. However, the police took no action.
(vi). On 19.10.2013, SI Shiv Kumar came to the neighbouring house H59, Shivaji Park, New Delhi to attend some other complaint. The husband of revisionist requested the Investigating Officer to take action on the complaints dated 18.09.2013 given by his wife. The Investigating Officer, instead of pacifying the husband of the revisionist, advised him not to pursue the matter as nothing will happen in this case as the respondent is a powerful person and has approached to the Commissioner of Police. The police took no action against Arvind Nagpal despite of repeated (Simi Sood Vs. Arvind Nagpal) (CR No.56009/2016) Page No.5 of pages 14 reminders and personal visits to senior police officials including DCP concerned. Ultimately, when the police did not take any action against the respondent, the revisionist filed a complaint case U/s 156 (3) Cr.P.C before the court of Ld. MM to take cognizance on her complaint vide complaint no.C763/1 in which a status report was called. The Investigating Officer filed a stats report on 06.01.2014 with connivance of the respondent and School officials, without giving any substantial material.
(vii). The impugned order dated 30.09.2014 is full of imparities and is against the principle of natural justice. The summoning to the revisionist is without assigning any reason.
(viii). Ld. MM has completely ignored the fact that the statement made to police against a person that he had committed an offence does not fall within the word falsely charged and same also does not amount to the institution of criminal proceeding within the meaning of Section 21 IPC.
(ix). The Court below fails to understand that the case does not fall U/s 211 IPC because revisionist reported the matter to police on the basis of the fact and circumstances taken place on 17.09.2013.
(x). Ld. MM has also ignored that neither the respondent nor Police Officials were able to produce the C.D. of the incidence taken place on dated 17.09.2013. Even the Ld. Court below did (Simi Sood Vs. Arvind Nagpal) (CR No.56009/2016) Page No.6 of pages 14 not ask to produce C.D. of the inside proceeding taken place on 17.09.2013. Ld. Trial Court passed the order on the basis of presumption and ignored the important evidence.
(xi). Ld. Trial Court has ignored that revisionist is a respectful woman and worked in the Institution for more than 25 years and there was no point to file a false complaint against the respondent. In fact, the respondent misbehaved, insulted and outrage the modesty of the revisionist on dated 17.09.2013. It has been completely ignored that the respondent has filed the false and frivolous complaint against the revisionist to deter from taking any action against the respondent.
(xii). It has been ignored that revisionist pointed out that school is working contrary to the CBSE Rule and Regulation and there is mismanagement in their school and school has become a commercial Institution and working contrary to the interest of School children.
(xiii). Ld. Trial Court has also ignored that respondent and the School Authority are in the habit of filing false and frivolous litigation and they have also filed a frivolous FIR against the husband of revisionist, who is reputed practicing MBBS Doctor. The Court below completely ignored that the respondent also named the fatherinlaw of the revisionist aged about 84 years in the said FIR by stating that they have committed theft by stealing the forms of Arya Samaj Membership and (Simi Sood Vs. Arvind Nagpal) (CR No.56009/2016) Page No.7 of pages 14 thereafter, respondent targeted the revisionist by filing the false and frivolous complaint to deter her courage.
(xiv). Ld. Trial Court has wrongly held in the impugned order that CW2, CW3, CW5 & CW6 supported the version of respondent. Further Ld. Trial Court has held in the impugned order that IO enquired about the incident after receipt of complaint from the revisionist and had come to conclusion that the allegation levelled by revisionist were baseless. It has also been ignored that neither respondent nor the police officials produced the CD of the office of respondent where the actual incident took place.
(xv). Further Ld. Trial Court has wrongly taken the cognizance by stating in the impugned order that "195 (1) (b) Cr.P.C bars taking of cognizance if all the following circumstances exist, namely, (i). that the offence in respect of which the case is brought falls U/s 211 IPC. (ii). that there should be a proceeding in a Court, and (iii). that the allegation should be that the offence U/s 211 IPC was committed in, or in relation to such a proceeding. When examining the question whether there is any proceeding in any court, three situations can be envisaged: (a) There may be no proceeding in any court at all; (b) a proceeding in a Court may actually be pending when cognizance is taken of the offence U/s 211 IPC (c) though there may be no proceeding pending in a court, there may have (Simi Sood Vs. Arvind Nagpal) (CR No.56009/2016) Page No.8 of pages 14 been a proceeding which had already concluded and the offence U/s 211 IPC may be alleged to have been committed in or in relation to that proceeding. In case (a) when there is no proceeding pending in any court at all at the time when the applicability of lier proceeding which may have been concluded the sub section would not apply, and in such a case, the Magistrate would be competent to take cognizance of the offence U/s 211 IPC.
(xvi). Further the respondent is acting with connivance of the school management and there is a vindictive malafide behaviour of the respondent as well as the school authorities. The respondent and the school authorities adopted all the unlawful, illegal and fabricated method to deter the courage of the revisionist. It is necessary to bring into the knowledge of the Court that the respondent alongwith the School Mangement sent a Memorandum vide Ref. No.D/XVI/09/2013 on 27.09.2014 with all lies with speed post bearing speed post articles no.ED264504077IN. The school management showed that revisionist refused to accept the letter but the fact of the matter is that the said memorandum was never delivered at revisionist's address. The revisionist inquired from the senior superintendent of Post Office, New Delhi West which revealed that the letter was never sent to the revisionist and the document was fabricated. It clearly shows that (Simi Sood Vs. Arvind Nagpal) (CR No.56009/2016) Page No.9 of pages 14 the respondent and the school management are acting in collusion and are in habit of forging the document and they can go to any extent and the present complaint filed by them upon which the Ld. court below has taken cognizance is one of such kind.
3. Notice of the petition was served upon the respondent/complainant, who after making his appearance, advanced his arguments through his counsel in details. I have heard the respective rival submissions of both the sides. I have also carefully perused the entire material placed on record particularly the contents of instant specially the ground taken therein and also the record summoned from Ld. Trial Court. I have also gone through the judgments relied upon by the parties.
4. According to Ld. Counsel for revisionist, the allegations levelled in the complaint are false and frivolous. Even otherwise, no offence as alleged or otherwise is made out and no criminality is borne out against the revisionist. Further Section 211 IPC is not attracted in the facts and circumstances of the case since neither any false information has been given nor any charges have been levelled by the revisionist. She has lodged a true complaint in respect of what had transpired. Even otherwise, cognizance of the complaint was barred under Section 195 Cr.P.C and accordingly the summoning order is liable to be set aside. The offence, if any, as alleged is squarely covered by Section 182 IPC, which deals with false information to a public servant and therefore, is neither justified nor resort to Section 211 IPC, instead of Section 182 IPC is misplaced and malafide in as much as cognizance of offence under Section 182 Cr.P.C can only be done in the manner provided for under Section 195 (1)(a) Cr.P.C. The incident admittedly relates to 17.09.2013, the complaint by the revisionist Simi Sood was given to the police on 26.09.2013 and complaint under Section 200/156(3) Cr.P.C by the revisionist Simi Sood (Simi Sood Vs. Arvind Nagpal) (CR No.56009/2016) Page No.10 of pages 14 was filed on 06.12.2013. That the cognizance of the complaint of the revisionist Simi Sood was taken on 17.02.2014 by Ld. MM when her application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C was rejected, it was treated as a complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C and direction for leading of evidence were given by Ld. MM. On the other hand the complaint of the complainant Arvind Nagpal under Section 200 Cr.P.C was filed on 17.09.2013 and summoning order was issued on 30.09.2014. Cognizance of complaint of the complainant Arvind Nagpal was taken on 30.09.2014 when summoning order was issued by Ld. MM. Thus at the time when the cognizance of the complaint of the complainant Arvind Nagpal was taken by Ld. MM, the complaint of the revisionist Simi Sood was not only pending but its cognizance had also been taken by the same Ld. MM. Thus proceedings in relation to which the complaint was filed by the complainant Arvind Nagpal were very much pending in Court and infact before the same Ld. MM. The offence alleged to in the complaint by the complainant Arvind Nagpal was in relation to proceedings in the Court and hence the bar under Section 195 (1) (b) Cr.P.C thus operated with full force. Ld. MM has relied upon the judgment titled as M.L. Sethi Vs. R.P. Kapur reported as 1967 AIR 528 SC while issuing the summoning order without appreciating that the said judgment infact categorically provides for there being a bar under Section 195(1)(b) Cr.P.C in such a scenario. Per contra, as per Ld. Counsel for respondent, the present petition as preferred is devoid of merits as it has been failed to point out any illegality or patent error in the impugned order and therefore, it is liable for dismissal. Ld. Trial Court after discussing the entire preliminary evidence and after getting satisfied, righly passed the impugned order. The claim of petitioner that the Court could not proceed U/s 211 IPC or that the offence if any, was under Section 182 Cr.P.C for which there was no complaint of public servant, is incorrect. The expression "falsely charges" in Section 211 IPC cannot be given a restricted meaning i.e. giving false evidence as (Simi Sood Vs. Arvind Nagpal) (CR No.56009/2016) Page No.11 of pages 14 a prosecution witness against an accused person during the course of a criminal trial, rather, it includes the original or initial accusation to get the machinery of criminal investigation in motion.
5. Having heard the rival submissions made before me and carefully perusing the entire material placed on record including the judgments relied upon by the parties, I am of the considered opinion that the instant petition as filed by the petitioner is liable to fail as it has been failed to point out any illegality of patent error in the same. From the perusal of the law cited by both the parties, it is apparent that cognizance is taken at the stage where the Court proceeds to record preliminary evidence under Section 200 Cr.P.C i.e. when the Court takes action to proceed under Section 200 Cr.P.C. Cognizance is taken of the offence and not of the offender and, therefore, once the court on perusal of the complaint is satisfied that the complaint discloses the commission of an offence and there is no reason to reject the complaint at that stage, and proceeds further in the matter it must be held to have taken cognizance of the offence.
In the present case the accused (revisionist herein) has been summoned for the offence U/s 211 IPC, which relates to the incident dated 17.09.2013 for which the petitioner herein made a complaint on 18.09.2013 to police against the respondent Arvind Nagpal. The respondent filed a complaint before Magistrate for proceeding against petitioner under Section 211 IPC alleging that she falsely charged the respondent (complainant before Ld. Magistrate) with having committed offence knowing that there is no just or lawful ground for such charge against the respondent. The complaint by respondent here was filed on 17.10.2013 and on 28.10.2013 presummoning evidence of complainant was recorded i.e. the Ld. Magistrate proceeded to record evidence of complainant under Section 200 Cr.P.C. After recording of evidence of complainant and other witnesses on further dates, the Court directed to (Simi Sood Vs. Arvind Nagpal) (CR No.56009/2016) Page No.12 of pages 14 issue summons to revisionist herein to face trial for the offence punishable U/s 211 Cr.P.C on 30.09.2014. Ld. Trial Court after discussing the entire preliminary evidence and after getting satisfied, rightly passed the impugned order. The claim of petitioner that the Court could not proceed U/s 211 IPC or that the offence if any, was under Section 182 Cr.P.C for which there was no complaint of public servant, is misconceived and incorrect. The essential ingredients of offence U/s 211 IPC, is to institute or cause, to be instituted any criminal proceeding against a person with intent to cause him injury or with similar intent to falsely charge any person for having committed an offence, knowing that there is no just or lawful ground for such proceeding or charge instituting or causing to institute false criminal proceedings assume false charge but false charge may be preferred even when no criminal proceedings result. The expression "falsely charges" in Section 211 IPC cannot mean giving false evidence as a prosecution witness against an accused person during the course of a criminal trial, rather, "To falsely charge" must refer to the original or initial accusation putting on seeking to put in motion the machinery of criminal investigation and not when seeking to prove the false charge by making deposition in support of the charge framed in that trial. The words "falsely charges" have to be read alongwith the expression "institution of criminal proceeding". Both these expressions, being susceptible of analogous meaning should be understood to have been used in their cognate sense. They get as it were their colour and content from each other. They seem to have been used in a technical sense as commonly understood in our criminal law. The false charge must, therefore, be made initially to a person in authority or to someone who is in a position to get the offender punished by appropriate proceedings. In other words, it must be embodied either in a complaint or in a report of a cognizable offence to the police officer or to an officer having authority over the person against whom the allegations are made.
(Simi Sood Vs. Arvind Nagpal) (CR No.56009/2016) Page No.13 of pages 14 The statement in order to constitute the "charges" should be made with the intention and object of setting criminal law in motion. Since the cognizance of offence in the complaint, filed by the respondent was already taken on 28.10.2013 when the Magistrate proceeded to record the evidence of the complainant U/s 200 Cr.P.C and in view of the Judgment reported as AIR 1967 SC 528 titled as "M.L. Sethi Vs. R.P. Kapur & Anr.", the complaint was maintainable as cognizance of the offence was already taken and at that time no judicial proceedings were pending as in the other criminal complaint filed by the petitioner cognizance was taken on 17.02.2014 i.e. later on. The cognizance of complaint which included an offence under Section 211 IPC filed by the respondent was rightly taken as there were no judicial proceedings pending regarding the offence complained by the petitioner and as such there was no bar under Section 195(1)(b) Cr.P.C. As there were no such earlier judicial proceedings pending as per the respondent, as cognizance on complaint under Section 211 IPC was taken on 28.10.2013 when the Court proceeded to record the statement of complainant (respondent herein) on oath, so the contentions of revisionist is devoid of substance and as such, the instant petition is liable to be dismissed. Same stands dismissed accordingly.
6. Both the parties are directed to appear before Ld. Trial court on 30.09.2016.
7. TCR alongwith the copy of judgment be sent to Ld. Trial Court for information and proceeding further in the matter as per law.
8. Revision file be consigned to Record Room after completion of necessary formalities.
(Announced in open Court (RAKESH KUMAR1)
on 09th September, 2016) Addl. Sessions Judge/Special
Judge (NDPS) (West)
Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi
(Simi Sood Vs. Arvind Nagpal) (CR No.56009/2016) Page No.14 of pages 14