Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Delhi District Court

Rachna Madan vs . on 20 December, 2022

                   IN THE COURT OF ASHWANI PANWAR
                  METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE-I (SOUTH)
                         SAKET COURTS, DELHI

       CT Case No. 465948/2016

       Rachna Madan
       W/o Sh. Sunil Madan
       R/o 32, Empire Estate
       MG Road, Sultanpur
       New Delhi                                         ... Complainant

                                          Vs.
       Sunil Madan
       S/o Sh. B.R. Madan
       R/o Village Gairatpur Bas
       Teekli Road, Badshapur
       Gurugram (Haryana)

       Also at:

       Laser Point Technologies Pvt. Ltd.
       258, Plot No.1, Said-ul-Ajab
       New Delhi                                        ...Accused

       Date of Institution            :         24.11.2011
       Date of judgment               :         20.12.2022

                     THE BRIEF REASONS FOR THE JUDGMENT

1.

The present complaint has been filed by the complainant Rachna Madan against the accused Sunil Madan alleging that in the wee hours of 10.11.2011 at around 1:30am, the accused came to the complainant's house at 32B, Empire Estates, Sultanpur, M.G. Road, New Delhi and started ringing the doorbell. When the complainant did not open the door, the accused broke open the entrance from the servant's side and entered the house through the terrace door which he forced open as Rachna Madan Vs. Sunil Madan Page 1 of 5 well. It is further alleged that the accused was in an inebriated state when he entered the house and on seeing the complainant, he started beating her with clenched fist and also verbally abused her and threatened her. Further, the complainant dialled 100 number and informed police about the beatings given by the accused. Two police officials came on the call of the complainant however they were not allowed to enter the house and the accused instead called 100 no. alleging that the complainant is trying to kill the accused with a gun. After much hesitation, the accused left the house where the complainant was residing.

2.During the course of proceedings, vide order dated 26.03.2012, the application under Section 156(3) CrPC filed by the complainant was dismissed. The complainant led pre- summoning evidence and examined herself in order to prove her case.

3.In pre-summoning evidence, the complainant/CW-1 reiterated the same facts as stated by her in the present complaint. After pre- summoning evidence, arguments on summoning were heard and the accused was summoned for the offence punishable under Sections 323/506 -I IPC.

4.Accused entered appearance and after supplying all the documents, notice for the offence punishable under Sections 323/506-I IPC was framed against the accused, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

5.After framing of notice, the complainant again examined herself and she was also cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for the accused.

6. After the evidence was closed, statement under Section 313 Cr. P.C. was recorded wherein the accused chose to lead DE and examined himself as DW-1. The accused was also cross examined by Ld. Counsel for the complainant. DE was closed at the statement of the accused and the matter was posted for final arguments.

7. Arguments heard. Record Perused. The accused and the complainant are husband and wife respectively. The allegations levelled in the present matter pertains to offences punishable under Section 323 & 506 I IPC. In order to bring home the guilt of the accused, the complainant was required to prove that the accused gave her beatings on 10.11.11 and also abused, insulted and threatened the complainant. The complainant has stated that the accused entered the house where the alleged incident occurred forcibly. The complainant is the only eye witness to the alleged incident. The property where the alleged incident occurred belongs to the accused, as stated by the complainant in cross examination dated 23.04.2016. In the cross examination of the same date it is also stated by the complainant that "I was directed to vacate this property by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi". The accused has stated that he had not entered the property forcibly and rather used his set of keys to get inside the same. In such circumstances, the version of the complainant that the accused entered the house forcibly does not inspire confidence of this Court.

8. Moving further, as far as offence under Section 323 IPC is concerned, it has been stated by the complainant that the accused slapped the complainant several times with clinched first. Although, the complainant made a formal complaint against the accused to the SHO, PS Fatehpur Beri on the same day, however, the complainant did not subject herself to medical examination. No reasonable explanation has been Rachna Madan Vs. Sunil Madan Page 3 of 5 furnished in this regard by the complainant. This fact goes against the complainant and makes the incident in question doubtful. Also the complainant is totally silent about any injury received on her person after the alleged several beatings given to her by the accused.

9. Also, Kalandra U/s 107/151 Cr. P.C. dated 10/11/11 prepared by SI Narendra PS Fatehpur Beri is on record as per which no beatings were given to the complainant by the accused and also that she has received no injury. It is also mentioned in the Kalandra that the complainant does not wish to get herself medically examined. In view of the above discussion this Court is of the considered opinion that the complainant has failed to prove that the accused gave beatings to her.

10. Secondly, as far as offence under section 506 I IPC is concerned, it is alleged that the accused criminally intimidated the complainant by threatening her. It is also alleged that the accused abused the complainant and threatened to call 10 men to the house and then show what he is capable of doing.

Section 503 IPC defines criminal intimidation and section 506 IPC is the penal provision prescribing punishment for the offence committed under section 503 IPC.

In Narendra Kumar & others Vs. State (2004) Cri LJ 2594 Hon'ble Delhi High Court pointed out ingredients of offence of ''criminal intimidation'' as defined in Section 503 IPC and punishable under Section 506 IPC are as under:-

1. Threatening a person with any injury;

(i) to his person, reputation or property; or

(ii) to the person or reputation of any one in whom that person is interested.

(2) Threatening a person with injury.

(a) to cause alarm to that person, or

(b) to cause the person to do any act which he is not legally bound to do as the means of avoiding the execution of such threat, or

(c) to cause that person to omit to do any act which that person is legally entitled to do so as the means of avoiding the execution of such threat.

Keeping in mind the above ingredients as pointed out by Hon'ble Delhi High Court, this Court is of the considered opinion that the allegations levelled by the complainant against the accused does not amount to criminal intimidation as the allegations are vague and bald and also does not appear to be sufficient to cause alarm to the complainant.

11. In view of the above discussion, the accused Sunil Madan deserves to be acquitted in the present matter. Accordingly, the accused Sunil Madan stands acquitted for the offences under section 323/506-I IPC in the present case.

                                                               Digitally signed by
                                                   ASHWANI ASHWANI PANWAR
                                                   PANWAR Date: 2022.12.21
                                                           15:36:47 +0530

Announced in the open court                    (ASHWANI PANWAR)
on 20.12.2022                              METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE-01
                                          SOUTH, SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI




Rachna Madan Vs. Sunil Madan                                                  Page 5 of 5