Delhi District Court
Additional Sessions Judge-01 : New ... vs Michael Dekmann on 12 July, 2012
-1-
IN THE COURT OF MS. NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA :
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-01 : NEW DELHI
In re :
CR No. 23A/12
Unique ID No. 02403R0007812011
1 Sanjoy Sachdev
S/o Shri Sikandar Lal Sachdev
R/o 1315, Bagichi Ram Chander,
Gali Sanga Rashan, Pahar Ganj,
New Delhi-110055
2 Harsh Malhotra
S/o Late Shri Ved Prakash Malhotra
R/o21-37/3, Third Floor,
Chuna Mandi, Pahar Ganj,
New Delhi-110055
3 Sonu Ranghi
S/o Shri Puran Chand
R/o 540/13, Nai Basti,
Kishan Ganj, Delhi-110007
4 Ms Kanta
D/o Shri Bahadur Singh
R/o 18/289, Kalyan Puri,
Delhi. ..... Revisionists
versus
1 Michael Dekmann
Chief Executive Officer
Allianz SE
Koeniginstrasse 28,
80802 Munich (GERMANY)
2 Dr. Christopher Mascher
Chief Executive Officer
Allianz SE
Koeniginstrasse 28,
80802 Munich (GERMANY)
CR No.23A/12 Page No. 1 of 7
-2-
3 Mr. Rahul Bajaj
Member of Parliament
R/o M. P. Flats,
Meena Bagh, New Delhi.
Also at :
C/o Bajaj Auto Ltd.
4/11, Asaf Ali Road,
New Delhi-110002
4 Mr. Kamesh Goyal
Vice President
Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd.
Representative of
M/s Allianz SE
GE Plaza, First Floor,
Airport Road, Yerawada,
Pune-411006 (MAHARASHTRA) ..... Respondents
Date of institution of the appeal : 02.02.2011
Date of reserving judgment/order : 23.05.2012
Date of judgment / order : 12.07.2012
JUDGMENT :
1 This is a criminal revision u/s 397 of Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as "Cr.PC") filed against the order dated 12.11.2012 vide which the complaint u/s 200 Cr.PC has been dismissed by the Ld. MM. 2 The facts in brief are that the revisionists Sanjoy Sachdev, Harsh Malhotra, Sonu Ranghi and Ms. Kanta had filed a complaint u/s 200 Cr.PC in which it was submitted that complainant no. 1 Sanjoy Sachdev was the Ex. President of Delhi Rpadesh National Panther Party and the other complainants were the members /workers of the party. The CR No.23A/12 Page No. 2 of 7 -3- complainants are the active social workers and have always been alert about the anti-social activities indulged by people in different parts of the country. The complainants saw the website www.allianz.com/en/about_allianz/regions_countries /asia_pacific/index.html, wherein India's map has been depicted in which the State of Jammu and Kashmir has been shown as part of Pakistan and Arunachal Pradesh has been shown as part of China. By depicting such map, the respondents had committed sedition and had indulged in anti- social act and has, therefore, committed an offence punishable u/s 124-A IPC. They have also mutilated and insulted the nation by depicting such map in the above-described manner and has, thus, committed offence u/s 124-A IPC read with provisions of the Prevention of Insult to National Honour Act, 1971. A prayer was, therefore, made for summoning the respondents for committing offence u/s 124-A IPC. 3 The application was supported by application u/s 156 (3) Cr.PC on which the Ld. MM had called for a report in which it was disclosed that Rahul Bajaj held only 26% share in M/s Bajaj Allianz and that he had no control in the said company. Ld. MM thereafter recorded the statements of complainants Sanjoy Sachdev Ex.CW1, Harsh Malhotra Ex.CW2 and Sonu Ranghi Ex.CW3. The Ld. MM in its impugned order observed that the complainants have failed to show that Rahul Bajaj had any concern with the website in question or that he could be held responsible for the material displayed on the website. It is also observed that no offence u/s 124-A IPC or CR No.23A/12 Page No. 3 of 7 -4- under the provisions of the Prevention of Insult to National Honour Act, 1971, has made out and accordingly the complaint was dismissed.
4 Aggrieved by the said order, the present revision has been filed.
5 During the arguments it was vehemently submitted that the consistent testimony of all the three complainants sufficiently proved that there was wrong depiction of the boundaries of India in the website of Bajaj Allianz and this amounted to insult to the national flag and also challenged the territorial sovereignty of India. It was argued that such serious derelictions and offences cannot be overlooked and the respondent must be summoned. It was also argued that when a protest was put with M/s Bajaj Allianz, they immediately changed the depiction of map by simply removing the physical boundaries, but they still have not admitted that the Jammu and Kashmir and Arunachal Pradesh are part of India.
6 I have heard the arguments and have perused the record. My observations are as under :
7 The complaint had been filed on specific allegations of sedition and insult to the national flag against "Rahul Bajaj" in person. It has been claimed that wrong depiction of flag of India has been done on website of Bajaj Allianz. However, complainant had failed to show that Rahul Bajaj is in any way connected to the said website. Sanjoy Sachdev in his testimony as CW1 has also stated that Rahul CR No.23A/12 Page No. 4 of 7 -5- Bajaj, who is the Member of Parliament, is responsible for wrong display of map by showing Indian territories to be part of enemy nations and he had shown disloyalty to India and the Constitution of India.
8 Likewise, CW2 Harsh Malhotra simply deposed that Rahul Bajaj was Chairman of Bajaj Group of Companies and is also an MP. In his testimony he has nowhere disclosed as to how the respondent is connected with Bajaj Allianz. 9 Likewise, CW3 Sonu Ranghi has merely stated that Rahul Bajaj is Chairman of Bajaj Allianz.
10 None of the complainants have placed on record any document to show that Rahul Bajaj was the Chairman or the controlling authority in Bajaj Allianz Company. In fact, the SHO in his detailed inquiry report had explained that Allianz is a German Company and it is separate from Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Company Ltd. Furthermore, Allianz holds 26% share capital in Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Company Limited and Mr. Rahul Bajaj is not involved in Allianz Company in any capacity. It was further submitted that the mistake of showing incorrect map of India was committed by Allianz Company and it was not done intentionally and the said mistake has already been corrected when it came to the knowledge of Allianz Company and an apology has also been given by Dr. Christopher Mascher, Chief Executive Officer, Regional Corporate Communication, Allianz Asia Pacific through newspaper. Despite this specific report, the complainants have failed to place on record any document of any kind to show that Rahul CR No.23A/12 Page No. 5 of 7 -6- Bajaj was in any way connected with the website or that he was a party to wrong depiction of map of India on the website. The Ld. MM has rightly observed that no offence is shown to have been committed by the respondent Rahul Bajaj and merely because he happens to be a Member of Parliament, cannot be a ground to summon him to face the trial. 11 The complainant had filed the complaint only against one accused i.e. Rahul Bajaj and the evidence has also been led only vis a vis him. It is a ground in appeal that Annexure 4 has been filed, which is stated to be an amended memo of parties in which three other persons viz. Michael Dekmann, Dr. Christopher Mascher and Mr. Kamlesh Goyal have also been included. The Trial Court Record shows that this memo of parties dated 08.12.2009 has also been placed on the record of the Ld. Trial Court, but there was no order whatsoever for filing of this amended memo of parties. It is also pertinent to note that under Code of Criminal Procedure there is no procedure of filing an amended memo of parties giving names of additional accused persons. The only process for summoning of additional accused could have been u/s 319 Cr.PC and not by way of amended memo of parties. In fact, there is also no procedure for filing of amended complaint. The amended memo of parties now placed on record along with the grounds for revision cannot be taken note of. As already discussed, there is no prima facie case made out against the accused Rahul Bajaj against whom the complaint has been filed. This amended memo of parties, now sought to be filed on record, CR No.23A/12 Page No. 6 of 7 -7- cannot be considered as no cogent evidence has been led against these co-accused persons by the complainant. 12 The order of the Ld. does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity. The present revision is, therefore, dismissed.
13 Trial Court Record be sent back along with the copy of this order.
14 Revision file be consigned to the Record Room. Announced in the open Court on 12th Day of July,2012.
(Neena Bansal Krishna) ASJ-01/PHC/New Delhi CR No.23A/12 Page No. 7 of 7