Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Delhi District Court

State vs Vikram Anand on 29 January, 2024

         IN THE COURT OF MS. T. PRIYADARSHINI
     ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE
       SOUTH DISTRICT, SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI

                        CR CASE/3377/2019
                     STATE Vs. VIKRAM ANAND

State vs. Vikram Anand
FIR No. 283/2018
Police Station : Saket
Under Section : 229A IPC


Date of institution         : 06.07.2019
Date of reserving           : Not Reserved
Date of pronouncement : 29.01.2024


                              JUDGMENT

a)    Serial number of the case        : 3377/2019
b) Date of          commission     of : 15.05.2018
   offence

c)    Name of the complainant          : Sh. Ranjeet Singh Chaudhary

d) Name, parentage and address : Vikram Anand S/o Sh. Darshan
   of the accused                Anand R/o H.No.6/9, Ashok
                                 Nagar, New Delhi.
e)    Offence complained of            : Section 229A IPC
f)    Plea of the accused              : Accused pleaded not guilty
g) Final order                         : Acquittal
h) Date of final order                 : 29.01.2024




State vs. Vikram Anand         FIR No. 283/2018, PS: Saket   Page 1 of 8
      BRIEF STATEMENT OF FACTS FOR THE DECISION

CASE OF THE PROSECUTION

1. In the present case, the FIR was registered under Section 229A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter "the IPC"), pursuant to the order dated 15.05.2018 passed by the then Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate-03 (NI Act), South District, Saket Courts, New Delhi. Presence of the accused was required by the Court in CT Case No. 1653/2015 463608/2016 titled as Ranjeet Singh Chaudhary Vs. Vikram Anand. The said Court had issued NBWs against the accused which was unexecuted and therefore, the Court issued a process under Section 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter "the Code") in the above said case against the accused as the accused did not appear despite being on bail and being granted multiple opportunities to appear before the Court.

CHARGE

2. Vide order dated 09.01.2020, charge was framed for the offence punishable under Section 229A IPC against the accused, who pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

ADMISSION/DENIAL OF DOCUMENTS

3. Vide order dated 09.01.2020, in compliance to the provisions of Section 294 of the Code, the accused was called upon to admit the genuineness of: i) The present FIR; ii) Certificate under Section 65B Indian Evidence Act; iii) Certified order dated 15.05.2018 of Sh. Arun Kumar Garg, Ld. MM (NI Act) South; iv) Rukka; v) DD no. 43A dated 15.05.2018; vi) Arrest memo; and vii) Copy of State vs. Vikram Anand FIR No. 283/2018, PS: Saket Page 2 of 8 complaint of case titled Ranjeet Singh Chaudhary vs. Vikram Anand as Ex A1 to A7.

PROSECUTION EVIDENCE

4. Prosecution examined three witnesses. PW1 ASI Amarchand from the list of prosecution witnesses of main charge-sheet. PW2 SI Durga Prasad [the investigating officer (IO)] and PW3 ASI Gurnam Singh (the process server) from the list of witnesses of supplementary charge-sheet.

5. PW1 ASI Amarchand deposed that on 17.09.2018, investigation of present case was marked to him. On that day, he along with ASI Durga Prasad reached Saket Court where IO attended the matter of anticipatory bail of accused and he formally arrested the accused. On receiving bail bonds from accused as per directions of the Court, he was released on bail. IO recorded the statement regarding the same. The witness correctly identified the accused. The witness was duly cross examined.

6. PW2 SI Durga Prasad (the IO) deposed that on 15.05.2018, an order for registration of FIR u/s 229A IPC against accused Vikram Anand was received at PS, which was endorsed by SHO PS Saket and subsequently, FIR was registered on the same. The investigation of present case was then marked to PW2, who made search for accused however accused was untraceable. On 17.09.2018, PW2 along with HC Amar Chand went to the Ld. Sessions Court to attend anticipatory bail matter of accused Vikram Anand, where anticipatory bail was granted to him. Thereafter, State vs. Vikram Anand FIR No. 283/2018, PS: Saket Page 3 of 8 PW2 formally arrested the accused in presence of his father. After getting bail bonds, the accused was released. PW2 recorded statement of HC Amar Chand u/s 161 of the Code and he prepared the chargesheet and filed the same. He then collected certified copies of complaint case titled as Ranjeet Singh Chaudhary vs. Vikram Anand along with other documents and after preparing supplementary charge-sheet, he filed it in the Court. Witness correctly identified the accused. The witness was duly cross examined.

7. PW3 ASI Gurnam Singh is the process server, who had gone to execute the process under Section 82 of the Code against accused Vikram Anand at H.No.6/9, Ashok Nagar, New Delhi on 28.05.2018, where accused was not found, however, he met with Sh. Darshan Anand, the father of the accused, who disclosed that the accused was not residing with him and he did not know his whereabouts. He also disclosed that he has no connection with accused. Thereafter, PW3 recorded the statement of Sh. Darshan Anand (father of accused) and Smt. Manju Anand vide Ex.PW3/A and Ex.PW3/B respectively. Thereafter, PW3 assembled the people present there and loudly read out the proclamation under Section 82 of the Code. PW3 affixed one copy of the proclamation on the main door of the house of the accused. He clicked the photograph of affixation of process which is Ex.PW3/C. Thereafter, PW3 went to second address of accused i.e. H.No. G28/3, Rajouri Garden, New Delhi where no house was built, however one office and some courier services were there in that place. There he met Sonu Sharma and Rashid, who were not aware about any person with name State vs. Vikram Anand FIR No. 283/2018, PS: Saket Page 4 of 8 Vikram Anand who had resided there. PW3 recorded statement of Sonu Sharma and Rashid. Thereafter, PW3 assembled the people present there and loudly read out the proclamation under Section 82 of the Code. PW3 affixed one copy of the proclamation on the main door of said the house of the accused. He clicked the photograph of affixation of process which is Ex.PW3/F. PW3 pasted the copy of the said proclamations on the notice board of the court. PW3 submitted his report vide Ex.PW3/G. The witness was duly cross- examined by the Ld. Defence Counsel.

STATEMENT / DEFENCE OF THE ACCUSED

8. In his statement recorded under Section 313 of the Code, the accused denied the entire evidence against him. He further stated that NI Act case was settled with the complainant and he was acquitted. He stated that he was not aware that summons and warrants were being issued against him by the concerned Court. He stated that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. Accused did not lead any evidence in his defence.

ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS

9. The record has been thoroughly and carefully perused. The respective submissions of Sh. Naresh Choudhary, Ld. Assistant Public Prosecutor for State and Sh. S.P. Sharma, Ld. Counsel for the accused have been considered.

10. Section 229A of the IPC provides that whoever having been charged with an offence and released on bail or on bond without sureties, fails without sufficient cause (the burden of proving which shall lie upon him), to appear in Court in accordance with the terms State vs. Vikram Anand FIR No. 283/2018, PS: Saket Page 5 of 8 of the bail or bond, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine, or with both.

11. It is an admitted position that the accused failed to appear before the Court on the date and time fixed and mentioned in the warrants. However, can his non-appearance be termed as absence without sufficient cause? The accused has stated in his statement under Section 313 of the Code that the main matter under Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 was compounded on 28.06.2018. He has further submitted that he was unaware that directions for registration of FIR were issued against him by the Ld. MM as the summons and warrants were not issued at an address where the accused was residing. Further, on account of the settlement, the process issued under Section 82 of the Code were recalled by the Ld. MM.

12. The order with respect to registration of FIR under Section 229A of IPC was passed by the Ld. MM on 15.05.2018. The basis for passing of said directions was the non-appearance of the accused despite issuance of NBWs by the Ld. MM. Therefore, the IO ought to have placed on record a certified copy of the warrants which were issued against the accused and the reports which were filed by the process server on the warrants. Only on the furnishing of said record along with the chargesheet, could it be ascertained whether the warrants were issued at the correct address of the accused (i.e. the address mentioned in the bail bond) and whether the report on the warrants indicate that the accused was avoiding execution of warrants. As the directions for registration of FIR were issued prior to declaration of the accused as a proclaimed State vs. Vikram Anand FIR No. 283/2018, PS: Saket Page 6 of 8 absconder, the record pertaining to the said process under Section 82 of the Code is not at all relevant. The relevant data i.e. the warrants issued against the accused have not been placed on record for reasons best known to the IO. This Court is unable to adjudicate on the question of legal propriety of the execution of the warrants as they have not been placed on record. Furthermore, the accused has furnished sufficient cause for non-appearance especially in light of the fact that the IO has not placed on record the relevant data.

13. Section 229A of the IPC is a substantive offence. The proof of an offence must be governed by its own ingredients. While the Court is mindful that directions for registration of FIR under Section 229A IPC of the Ld. MM is conclusive proof of non- appearance, such a mandate does not translate into unequivocal conviction under Section 229A IPC. If this construction was to be accepted, every allegation under Section 229A IPC would be bereft of the need for evidence and the accused shall stand convicted almost by presumption and not by proof. Such an interpretation is beyond the rules of evidence, which requires each fact in issue to be proved by way of evidence on oath. The deposition of every witness must necessarily be permitted to be cross-examined for it to constitute admissible evidence. It has to be proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused did not appear without sufficient cause. The provisions of Section 229A of the Code are mandatory and are to be construed strictly and therefore, the relevant record ought to have been placed along with the chargesheet. In view of the above, the non-appearance of the accused has not been proved to be without sufficient cause and hence, the accused Vikram Anand is acquitted of the offence under Section 229A IPC.

14. In compliance to Section 437A CrPC, the accused Vikram Anand is directed to furnish bail bond.

Dictated and announced in open Court on 29.01.2024.

                                    T.            PRIYADARSHINI
                                    PRIYADARSHINI
                                                  Date: 2024.01.29
                                                  16:03:46 +0530

                                    (T. Priyadarshini)
                         Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate
                          South District, Saket Courts, New Delhi
                                       29.01.2024




State vs. Vikram Anand      FIR No. 283/2018, PS: Saket              Page 8 of 8