Delhi District Court
State vs . Rajeev Arora Page 1/14 on 21 January, 2021
THE COURT OF SH. BABRU BHAN
ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,
ROOM NO. 101, NORTH WEST, ROHINI COURTS, DELHI
STATE
VERSUS
RAJEEV ARORA
FIR No.-151/01
CASE No. 538082/2016
P.S- Model Town
U/s- 182 IPC
1. Date of commission of offence: 28.02.2001
2. Name of the Complainant : Inspector Ashok Kumar,
Crime Branch, Adarsh Nagar,
Delhi.
3. Name of the accused, and : RAJEEV CHOPRA,
his parentage and residence S/o- Sh. Krishan Gopal
Arora,
R/o- 8, State Bank Colony,
GTK Road, Delhi.
4. Date when judgment : 19.01.2021
was reserved
5. Date when Judgment : 21.01.2021
was pronounced
6. Offence Complained of : 182 IPC
or proved
7. Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty
8. Final Judgment : ACQUITTED.
Digitally
signed by
BABRU BABRU BHAN
Date:
BHAN 2021.01.21
11:27:57
+0530
FIR No.-151/01
CASE No. 538082/2016
P.S- Model Town
State Vs. Rajeev Arora page 1/14
JUDGMENT
Brief Statement of reasons for the decision of the case
1. On 28.01.2001, an information regarding advancing threats by use of illegal firearms was registered at PS- Model Town. The said information was reduced into writing vide DD No. 8A Ex. PW4/A. The said DD was marked to SI Suraj Bhan for further enquiry.
2. During investigation, Inspector Suraj Bhan PW5 reached the spot revealed by the complainant near Shakti Nagar Exchange, Model Town but no one was found there. When he returned to the Police Station, he found Rajeev Arora present there who stated that on 28.01.2001, he left his house at about 11.45 am for PHQ in his Maruti Van No. 4884. En route to his office, he noticed that one Cielo car No. HR 26E 3703 was following him. When he reached at the corner of gali, the Cielo car came dangerously close to his car. At that time, he saw that Ramesh Chawla with another person namely J.C. Khanna and the driver were present in the car. Rajeev Arora further stated that he got scared and took U-turn from a place opposite Nanak Piau Gurudwara. At that time, he saw Ramesh Chawla pointing a gun towards him and making threatening gestures. His statement was recorded, rukka Ex. PW5/A was prepared and endorsement Ex. PW5/B was made on the same. On the basis of rukka Ex. PW5/A, present case FIR came to be registered. The DD No. 8A Ex. PW4/A and the statement of Rajeev Arora were kept pending till March, 2001 and after the directions of senior police officials, FIR No. 115/01 was registered.
3. Further investigation of the case was assigned to SI Rakesh Kumar PW7. He again recorded the statement of Rajeev Arora U/s 161 Cr.P.C. Thereafter, he collected the mobile phone location of Rajeev Arora and Ramesh Chawla. The location record of both the mobile phones were FIR No.-151/01 CASE No. 538082/2016 P.S- Model Town State Vs. Rajeev Arora page 2/14 obtained from the concerned tele service provider and location of both the mobile phones were found at Gunjarwala Town. On 15.07.2001, IO interrogated Ramesh Chawla regarding his location at Gunjarwala Town on 28.01.2001. Ramesh Chawla told him that on 28.01.2001, he was present in the O/o- ACP District Crime Cell, North, PS- BH Rao alongwith ACP Raghubir Singh and SI Ramesh Chand between 11.30 am to 2.30 pm. PW7 further stated that he alongwith Rajeev Arora, J.C Khanna, SI Ramesh Chand and Inspector Ran Singh went to the place of occurrence alongwith the vehicles and tried to recreate the incident. During the recreation of the incident, it was found that it was not possible to see any person in the Cielo car from the rear view mirror from the distance of 5-7 meters. He also interrogated Meena Chawla, W/o- Ramesh Chawla. She told that she had gone to meet her friend Chandrakanta at C-72, New Police Line on the date of incident. Chandrakanta was also interrogated in this regard. ACP Raghubir Singh was also interrogated.
4. During investigation conducted in case FIR No. 115/01, the investigating agency reached the conclusion that Ramesh Chawla was present in the O/o- ACP District Crime Cell, North, PS- BH Rao at the time of alleged incident. It was further observed that since Ramesh Chawla was not even present at the spot as alleged by Rajeev Arora, therefore, the complaint lodged by the him was false. Thereafter, police filed the final report as cancellation.
5. Vide order dated 13.02.2002, the said cancellation report was accepted by the Court and directions were issued to initiate proceedings U/s 182 IPC against Rajeev Arora. Therefore, present kalandra U/s 182 IPC was filed against Rajeev Arora.
FIR No.-151/01
CASE No. 538082/2016
P.S- Model Town
State Vs. Rajeev Arora page 3/14
6. On 12.03.2003, a notice U/s 251 Cr.P.C for the offence U/s 182 IPC was served upon Rajeev Arora for which he pleaded not guilty and claim trial.
7. During prosecution evidence, seven witnesses have been examined. This Court shall not note in detail the testimonies of formal witnesses who merely participated in the formal process of investigation as their brief roles have already been delineated in forgoing paragraphs.
8. ACP P.N. Narula PW1 has stated that accused Rajeev Arora had appeared before the DCP North West who directed the registration of the present case. In pursuant to the directions, present case FIR No. 115/01 Ex. PW1/A was registered.
9. Ramesh Chawla PW2 has stated in his Court statement that many litigations were pending between him and accused Rajeev Arora (details of those litigations are not being reproduced as they are not relevant to the present controversy and same have not been disputed by the accused). He has further stated that on 28.02.2001, he was present at DC Cell North, PS- BH Rao from 11.30 am to 2.30 pm. ACP Raghubir Singh and SI Ramesh Chand were also present there. They were investigating the FIR in connection with which he had appeared before them. After registration of FIR No. 115/01, he was repeatedly receiving calls from PS- Model Town to appear in the Police Station. Therefore, he obtained anticipatory bail from the Court on 03.03.2001. Since, SHO, PS- Model town and SI Suraj Bhan were not conducting proper investigation in FIR No. 115/01, therefore, he made complaint to PHQ. Thereafter, matter was transferred to Crime Branch. During investigation, he was found innocent and proceedings U/s 182 IPC was initiated against accused Rajeev Arora.
FIR No.-151/01
CASE No. 538082/2016
P.S- Model Town
State Vs. Rajeev Arora page 4/14
10. PW3 Inspector Ramesh Chand deposed that on 28.02.2001, he was investigating FIR No. 271/2000. The complainant in the said case was Ramesh Chawla. He served notice U/s 160 Cr.P.C upon him and called him to join investigation. On 28.02.2001, Ramesh Chawla was called to join investigation. He reached PS- Bara Hindu Rao at about 11.00-11.15 am. At that time, Ramesh Chand PW3 was going to Tis Hazari Courts to file the status report in case FIR No. 240/2000. PS- Kashmere Gate. Ramesh Chawla met him at the stairs. He directed Ramesh Chawla to meet ACP and thereafter, he left for Tis Hazari Courts. When he returned back at about 12.00-12.15 pm, he saw Ramesh Chawla still present there at PS- BH Rao. Thereafter, he was joined in the investigation and his statement was recorded. Ramesh Chawla PW3 was relieved at about 2.00-2.30 pm and thereafter, Inspector Ramesh Chand PW3 again went to Tis Hazari Courts. PW7 SI Ramesh Chand conducted further investigation, obtained the requisite documents and filed the closure report. After closure report was filed, further investigation of the case was conducted by Inspector Ashok Kumar (not examined). After closure report was accepted by the Court, SI Ramesh Chand also filed Kalandra U/s 182 IPC against Rajeev Arora.
11. Inspector Suraj Bhan PW5 is the IO of the case FIR No. 115/01. In his Court statement, he has stated that he recorded statement of complainant Rajeev Arora wherein he narrated the incident of chasing and intimidation by Ramesh Chawla and J.C. Khanna. On the said statement Ex. PW3/A, he prepared rukka Ex. PW5/B. On the basis of the rukka, case FIR No. 115/01 came to be registered.
12. R.K. Singh, Nodal Officer, Bharti Airtel appeared as PW6. He has filed the call details record and locations of Rajeev Arora and Ramesh FIR No.-151/01 CASE No. 538082/2016 P.S- Model Town State Vs. Rajeev Arora page 5/14 Chawla Ex. PW6/A1 to PW6/A5 and PW6/B1 to PW6/B9.
13. After prosecution evidence was closed, statement of accused Rajeev Arora was recorded in terms of Section 313 Cr.P.C wherein he denied the allegations against him and stated that he had been falsely implicated in this case.
14. During defence evidence, he examined himself as sole witness. In his Court statement, he has reiterated the same facts which he had stated to the police in his initial complaint. The detailed narratives of his statement are not required to be reproduced as same have already been detailed in the preceding paragraphs.
15. Arguments heard. Record has been perused. Now, I proceed with the judgment.
16. The first argument advanced by the Ld counsel for the accused is that accused has been prosecuted for the offence U/s 182 IPC. The offence U/s 182 IPC falls in the ambit of Section 195 Cr.P.C. The cognizance of any offence mentioned in Section 195 Cr.P.C cannot be taken without a written complaint made by the concerned officer. The contention raised by the Ld counsel is that in the present case, since no complaint U/s 195 Cr.P.C was filed by the concerned officer, cognizance is bad in law and therefore, the entire proceedings are vitiated.
17. Advancing his counter arguments, Ld APP for the State has argued that the offence U/s 195 Cr.P.C is the offence related to the contempt of lawful authority of a public servant. Therefore, last decision to prosecute or not to prosecute any person who has violated his authority has been left to FIR No.-151/01 CASE No. 538082/2016 P.S- Model Town State Vs. Rajeev Arora page 6/14 the discretion of the concerned public servant. Since, the police officer who was the last investigating officer of the case FIR No. 115/01 has filed the proceedings U/s 182 IPC against Rajeev Arora, it means he had exercised his discretion and decided to proceed against the accused. The Kalandra U/s 182 IPC is nothing but written complaint made to the Court by the concerned public servant. Now, merely because Section 195 Cr.P.C has not been specifically mentioned in the complaint does not mean that cognizance is bad in law and the entire proceedings are vitiated.
18. The offence covered under the scope of Section 195 Cr.P.C are the offences relating to contempt of lawful authority of public servants. The legislative object behind Section 195 Cr.P.C is to provide discretion to the concerned officer to prosecute a person who has violated his lawful authority. For that purpose, the concerned public servant has to make a written complaint and the Court can take cognizance of the offence on that written complaint only. In this case, proceedings U/s 182 IPC (Kalandra) has been filed by the investigating officer who had concluded investigation in case FIR No. 115/01. The proceedings has been filed before the Court with a view to take action against the accused as per law. So, in considered opinion of this Court, the kalandra U/s 182 IPC filed by the concerned IO is a written complaint made to the Court. It fulfills all the requirements of the statutory provisions provided U/s 195 Cr.P.C. The Court cannot take hyper technical view and exonerate the accused merely because Section 195 Cr.P.C has not been speficially mentioned in the kalandra. Accordingly, in considered opinion of this Court, kalandra U/s 182 IPC is a written complaint U/s 195 Cr.P.C. Thus, there is no illegality in the cognizance and the argument advanced by Ld counsel for the accused is liable to be rejected.
19. Another argument advanced by the Ld APP for the State is that since FIR No.-151/01 CASE No. 538082/2016 P.S- Model Town State Vs. Rajeev Arora page 7/14 the Ld Predecessor had accepted the closure report filed in case FIR No. 115/01 vide order dated 13.02.2002 and directed to initiate proceedings U/s 182 IPC to the police authorities. Therefore, the finding that the complaint lodged by Rajeev Arora against Ramesh Chawla was false has already been returned. The contention raised by Ld APP for the State is that if this Court again goes into the truth or falsity of the complainant lodged by Rajeev Arora, it would amount to reviewing the order dated 13.02.2002 passed by the Ld Predecessor whereby the cancellation report was accepted. As per the prosecution, that review is not permitted by law.
20. If the logic putforth by the Ld APP for the State is accepted, a person can be convicted for the offence U/s 182 IPC without serving notice U/s 251 Cr.P.C and without recording of any evidence. In other words, if acceptance of the closure/ cancellation report is sufficient to prove the ingredients of the offence U/s 182 IPC, then there is no point of conducting trial in Kalandra U/s 182 IPC. Correct that closure report filed by the investigating agency was accepted by the Court vide order dated 13.02.2002 but that order is not sufficient to snatch away the right of free and fair trial from the accused. The prosecution has to again establish beyond reasonable doubt that the complaint lodged by the accused Rajeev Arora was false. That would be the proper compliance of the criminal jurisprudence. Thus, in considered opinion of this Court, mere acceptance of closure report is not sufficient to dispense with the trial of the case U/s 182 IPC. The prosecution has to again establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Arguments of Ld APP for the State is accordingly rejected.
21. Now, coming to the question as to whether the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that complaint lodged by Rajeev Arora regarding the incident dated 28.02.2001 was true or false. Rajeev Arora has stated in FIR No.-151/01 CASE No. 538082/2016 P.S- Model Town State Vs. Rajeev Arora page 8/14 his statement given to the police as well as in his Court statement when he appeared as PW1 that on 28.02.2001, when he left his house and reached at the corner of gali, one Cielo car came dangerously close to his car. At that time, he saw that Ramesh Chawla with another person namely J.C. Khanna and a driver were in the car. Further stated that he got scared and took U-turn from opposite Nanak Piau Gurudwara. At that time, he saw Ramesh Chawla pointing a gun towards him and making threatening gestures.
22. The investigating agency rejected the aforesaid version of Rajeev Arora firstly on the basis of statement of Inspector Ramesh Chand PW3. Through the statement of PW3, the investigating officer of case FIR No. 115/01, the prosecution has has attempted to establish that at the time of alleged incident narrated by Rajeev Arora, Ramesh Chawla was present at O/o- DCP Crime Cell, North, PS- BH Rao from 11.15 am to 2.30 pm. Now, the first question arises that whether Inspector Ramesh Chand PW3 was present with Ramesh Chawla during the entire period when the alleged incident had taken place. It does not appear from the statement of PW3 that he was present with Ramesh Chawla during the entire period when the alleged incident had taken place. PW3 has stated in his Court statement that he had met Ramesh Chawla at the stairs of PS- BH Rao at about 11.15 am. Thereafter, he went to Tis Hazari Courts and returned at about 12.15 pm. At that time, Ramesh Chawla was still present in the Police Station alongwith ACP Raghubir Singh. The aforesaid statement of PW3 Ramesh Chand shows that he was not with Ramesh Chawla between 11.15 am to 12.15 pm. Now, the distance between the place of incident alleged by Rajeev Arora and PS- BH Rao has to be taken into consideration to see whether it was possible for Ramesh Chawla to leave PS- BH Rao, threaten Rajeev Arora and again return to PS- BH Rao before 12.15 pm. As per the version of Rajeev Arora, the incident had taken place at about 11.15 am at Gunjarwala Town. Taking FIR No.-151/01 CASE No. 538082/2016 P.S- Model Town State Vs. Rajeev Arora page 9/14 note of the distance between Gunjarwala Town and PS- BH Rao, the Court reaches the conclusion that leaving PS- BH Rao, committing offence at Gunjarwala Town and returning to PS- BH Rao before 12.30 pm was not completely impossible. Thus, merely because Inspector Ramesh Chand PW3 had met Ramesh Chawla in PS- BH Rao and again saw him at 12.30 pm at PS- BH Rao is not conclusive to establish that Ramesh Chawla had not committed the alleged offence.
23. Further, Inspector Ramesh Chand PW3 has stated that he had gone to Tis Hazari Courts in connection with filing of status report in case FIR No. 240/2000, PS- Kashmere Gate. No document regarding departure and arrival entry has been filed on record. Next, Inspector Ramesh Chand PW3 has stated that Ramesh Chawla was called in PS- BH Rao on 28.02.2001 in connection with case FIR No. 271/2000 by serving notice U/s 160 Cr.P.C. Relevant it would be to note that no such notice U/s 160 Cr.P.C has been proved or produced on record. This fact also raises doubt on the credibility of the statement given by Inspector PW3 Inspector Ramesh Chand.
24. ACP Raghubir Singh could have provided some corroboration to the case of the prosecution but he expired before his statement could be recorded.
25. One of the most important evidence which goes to corroborate the version of Rajeev Arora and falsifies the case of the prosecution is the call record of the mobile phone of Ramesh Chawla and Rajeev Arora produced by PW6 R.K. Singh, Nodal Officer Airtel. The documents Ex. PW6/A1 to PW6/A5 and PW6/B1 to PW6/B9 produced by PW6 would show the locations of the mobile phone of Rajeev Arora and Ramesh Chawla at the place revealed by Rajeev Arora at the relevant point of time. If Ramesh FIR No.-151/01 CASE No. 538082/2016 P.S- Model Town State Vs. Rajeev Arora page 10/14 Chawla was present at PS- BH Rao at the time of alleged incident, how on earth the location of his mobile phone came to be at the place where Rajeev Arora was present.
26. PW7 SI Rakesh has sought to explain the location of the mobile phone of Ramesh Chawla at the place of incident stating that Meena Chawla, W/o- Ramesh Chawla had gone to meet Chandrakanta at New Police Lines. Although, PW7 has not stated anything directly but has attempted to explain that mobile phone of Ramesh Chawla was carried by his wife Meena Chawla alongwith her, therefore, the location of Ramesh Chawla is reflected at the place of incident. It is interesting to see that Ramesh Chawla has nowhere stated in his statement that his mobile phone was carried by his wife Meena Chawla that day. Further, Meena Chawla has also not been cited as witness. Chandrakanta to whom wife of Ramesh Chawla had gone to meet has also not been made a witness. In considered opinion of this Court, statement of Meena Chawla would have been very substantial for the case of the prosecution to explain the location of the mobile phone of Ramesh Chawla alongwith Rajeev Arora at the time of incident but she has not been cited and examined as witness for the reasons best known to the investigating agency. In considered opinion of this Court, the prosecution has terribly failed to wriggle out of the evidence relating to location of mobile phone of Ramesh Chawla alongwith Rajeev Arora at the time of incident. This fact provide a strong corroboration to the version of Rajeev Arora.
27. As per Rajeev Arora, one J.C. Khanna was also present with Ramesh Chawla. When J.C. Khanna was asked about his mobile phone, he stated that he never used mobile phone. It has been argued by Ld counsel for accused that J.C. Khanna was reputed businessman in 2001. By 2001, mobile phone FIR No.-151/01 CASE No. 538082/2016 P.S- Model Town State Vs. Rajeev Arora page 11/14 had reached every common man in India. In these circumstances, the statement of J.C. Khanna that he was not using mobile phone in 2001 does not appear to be true. The contention raised by Ld counsel for accused is that J.C. Khanna deliberately did not told about his mobile phone to the investigating agency to conceal his location at the time of the incident. This Court finds itself in agreement with the submissions made by the Ld counsel for accused. In 2001, everyone had started using mobile phone. Thus, it does not appears to be credible that J.C. Khanna who was a leading businessman at that time was not using mobile phone. This fact also indicates towards the possibility that mobile phone details of J.C. Khanna were deliberately withheld by him to conceal his location at for the obvious reasons. Moreover, no attempts were made to ascertain the mobile phone location and identity of the driver.
28. It has also come on record that Ramesh Chawla was having licensee pistol. He has stated in his Court statement that pistol had been deposited in the Police Station. However, it has not been elaborated that where the pistol was deposited, when it was deposited and why it was deposited. The fact that Ramesh Chawla was having pistol is relevant U/s 8 of Indian Evidence Act because he had an opportunity to use the same against Rajeev Arora. This fact becomes more relevant in light of the fact that date and time of depositing of the same in the Police Station has not been given by him.
29. The investigating officer has stated that they had recreated the scene of crime and it was observed that it was not possible to see a person in Cielo car from a distance of 5-7 meters from rear view mirror. This fact deposed by investigating officer does not appears to be logical and relevant. Reason being that Rajeev Arora nowhere stated that he had seen Ramesh Chawla and J.C. Khanna from rear view mirror only. He has stated that when he took FIR No.-151/01 CASE No. 538082/2016 P.S- Model Town State Vs. Rajeev Arora page 12/14 U-turn, he saw that Ramesh Chawla and J.C. Khanna were present in the car and Ramesh Chawla showed pistol to him. It can be easily gathered from the statement of Rajeev Arora that he had not only seen Ramesh Chawla and J.C. Khanna from the rear view but he saw them from side window when he took U-turn. Even otherwise, its a matter of common knowledge that a person can be easily identified from the rear view mirror from a distance of 5-7 meters. Thus, this fact is not sufficient to reject the version of Rajeev Arora in totality.
30. In nutshell, the investigating agency failed to explain the mobile phone location of Ramesh Chawla alongwith Rajeev Arora at the time of incident. The documents relating to the case FIR No. 271/2000, PS- Kashmere Gate in connection of which Ramesh Chawla had allegedly visited PS- BH Rao have not been produced on record. The notice U/s 160 Cr.P.C in pursuant to which Ramesh Chawla had visited the Police Station has also not been proved. It is clear from the statement of PW3 Inspector Ramesh Chand that he was not present alongwith Ramesh Chawla during the entire period when the alleged offence could have been committed by him. Taking note of the distance between the PS- BH Rao and the place of occurrence of alleged incident, possibility cannot be ruled out that Ramesh Chawla returned to PS- BH Rao after committing the alleged offence against Rajeev Arora.
31. After the aforesaid factual analysis, this Court arrives at a finding that it has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt that the complaint lodged by Rajeev Arora regarding incident dated 28.02.2001 was false. The case of the prosecution is full of doubts. The cardinal principal of law cannot be forgotten that the prosecution has to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubts. The standard of proof is not preponderance of probabilities but proof FIR No.-151/01 CASE No. 538082/2016 P.S- Model Town State Vs. Rajeev Arora page 13/14 beyond all reasonable doubts. It is well settled legal preposition that the benefit of doubt goes in favour of accused. Under the circumstances, it would not be safe to convict the accused. Hence, accused Rajeev Arora is acquitted on the basis of benefit of doubt.
File be consigned to Record Room after due compliance.
Digitally signed by BABRU BABRU BHAN
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN BHAN Date:
2021.01.21
11:28:16 +0530
COURT ON 21.01.2021.
(BABRU BHAN)
ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE/ NORTH WEST
ROHINI COURTS/ DELHI.
FIR No.-151/01
CASE No. 538082/2016
P.S- Model Town
State Vs. Rajeev Arora page 14/14