Punjab-Haryana High Court
Birmati vs State Of Haryana on 6 August, 2012
Author: M.M.S. Bedi
Bench: M.M.S. Bedi
CRM M-20986 of 2011 [1]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH.
Date of Decision: August 6, 2012
1. CRM M-20986 of 2011
Birmati
.....Petitioner
Vs.
State of Haryana
.....Respondent
2. CRM M-21776 of 2011
Sunita
.....Petitioner
Vs.
State of Haryana
.....Respondent
3. CRM M-21842 of 2011
Saina Mirza
.....Petitioner
Vs.
State of Haryana
.....Respondent
4. CRM M-32917 of 2011
Ramesh Aggarwal
CRM M-20986 of 2011 [2]
.....Petitioner
Vs.
State of Haryana
.....Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.S. BEDI.
-.-
Present:- Mr.Naresh Kaushik, Advocate
for the petitioner in CRM M-20986 of 2011.
Mr.Dinesh Arora, Advocate
for the petitioner in CRM M-21776 of 2011.
Mr. Sarfraj Hussain, Advocate
for the petitioner in CRM M-21842 of 2011.
Ms. Vandana Malhotra, Advocate
for the petitioner in CRM M-32917 of 2011.
Mr. Subhash Godara, Addl.A.G., Haryana.
-.-
M.M.S. BEDI, J.
This order will dispose of four petitions, i.e. Crl. Misc. No. 20986 of 2011 filed by Birmati under Section 438 Cr.P.C., Crl. Misc. No. M-21776 of 2011 filed by Sunita under Section 438 Cr.P.C., Crl. Misc. No. M-21842 of 2011 filed by Saina Mirza under Section 438 Cr.P.C. and Crl. Misc. No. M-32917 of 2011 filed by Ramesh Aggarwal under Section 438 Cr.P.C., in case FIR No. 479 dated June 9, 2011.
The abovesaid FIR No. 479 was registered at the instance of Kashmiri Lal resident of Panipat to the Superintendent of Police, Panipat.
CRM M-20986 of 2011 [3] The contents of the FIR which was registered on the basis of his compliant to SP, Panipat, reads as follows:-
"To Superintendent of Police, Panipat. Subject:-
Application for fair investigation in FIR No. 418 dated 23.5.2011 under Section 376/506 IPC, Police Station Samalkha, District Panipat. Sir, it is prayed that I Kashmir Lal son of Late Sh. Ram Narain caste Aggarwal, am the resident of House No. 3049, New Housing Board Colony, Panipat. I am having the business in Samalkha and having a thread factory. I am having two sons. My elder son Rakesh is married, whereas younger is unmarried. My elder son is with me in the business whereas younger son is serving in foreign. I am aged about 60 years. About 50-60 employees are working in my factory including women.
On dated 5.4.2011 a lady namely Pooja called me on my mobile No.98124-44100 from her mobile No. 96718- 90863 and said that she wants some girls to be employed in my factory. On that I said that I am sufficient employees. So, I can not give job to any one. But after some time, one lady namely Kusum who was having a child in her lap alongwith another woman came to my factory. Other lady disclosed her name as Heena. Both CRM M-20986 of 2011 [4] of them said that Pooja had sent them. Heena was saying again and again that she is a poor lady and she is in dire need of money. Immediately, I rang up Pooja and asked her that why had she sent these women even after my refusal. Upon which, she replied in a threatening manner that I need not talk too much and she knows how to get her work done. After 14-15 days, I again received a call from Pooja and after she disconnected the phone I again called her. Thereafter, a few days, I received a missed call from Pooja and I talked to her about this by calling her. After about a month, I received a missed call on my mobile phone from phone No. 072069-84726 and upon my calling back on that no., the woman told her name to be Kusum and requested me to keep her on a job and she gave her second number as 89509-31552. After that, I received missed call from that number. I called her back on that number and told her not to ring me up. On 22.5.2011, she took Rs.500/- as an advance from me and told me she would come to my factory for work. On the same day in the evening, my son Rakesh received a telephone from that lady and she alongwith many other ladies came to my factory alongwith two criminal typed persons whose names were told to be Pale Ram and CRM M-20986 of 2011 [5] Suresh to talk. All these persons told to my son to either give Rs.5 lacs to Kusum otherwise they will involve me in a false case of rape and spoil my image in the society. They again and again threatened that they will not allow us to live in the society by spoiling our image in the society through newspaper and TV. We flatly refused to give the money and upon which the aforesaid persons in conspiracy with a view to extract money got registered an FIR No. 418 dated 23.5.2011 under Section 376/506 IPC at Police Station Samalkha. Sir, I belong to Bania community and my character can be verified from the peoples of city. I am a person of unblemished character, but Birmati, Kusum and their colleagues Sunita, Saina Mirza, Pale Ram and other persons have made mine and my family life hell and they are blackmailing me by demanding Rs.5 lacs. Under pressure and to save my image, on 23.5.2011, in the evening, I gave Rs.1 lac to a woman named Sunita. We do not want to give any money to these people. These people are trying to blackmail me and spoil my image in various ways and I can give proof regarding the same to you. I have come to know that the woman namely Kusum had already got some false cases registered. So it is prayed to you that CRM M-20986 of 2011 [6] the above mentioned may kindly be fairly investigated and legal action be taken against the accused persons. Sd/-Kashmiri Lal."
Counsel for petitioner Sunita has contended that as a matter of fact, the complainant had committed an offence of rape against Kusum and an FIR was registered as FIR No. 416 of May 23, 2011 under Sections 376, 506 IPC at Police Station, Samalkha. The complainant had tried to get the matter compromised with Kusum and he approached many respectables of the Society and the petitioner Sunita is an active social worker. She was approached by the complainant through one Saroj Taluja, a human right activist. She was told that some ladies were tried to falsely implicate the complainant Kashmiri Lal. The petitioner agreed to Assist Saroj Taluja but when the petitioner came to know that Kusum was subject to sexually assaulted, which was explained by Kusum herself, the petitioner refused to help the complainant as such the complainant, in order to pressurize, lodged FIR against Kusum and few other ladies including the petitioner. It has been claimed that she has got no connection with Kusum. It has been claimed that it was complainant himself who had contacted her on her mobile and request her to help him in getting out of the criminal case registered against him under Section 376 IPC. The petitioner agreed to help him in case in case the complainant had been falsely involved. Since the complainant had actually committed rape, the petitioner refused herself and has been involved in the present case falsely.
CRM M-20986 of 2011 [7] On behalf of Birmati, Mr. Naresh Kaushik, Advocate argued that the present petitioner had led agitation alongwith other persons for the offence committed by complainant Kashmiri Lal with poor lady and had approached D.C., Panipat. She has been impleaded in the case on the basis of statement of Poonam @ Pooja, who had stated that the money extorted had been shared. It has been argued that on the basis of the weak and inadmissible evidence, she has been falsely implicated.
So far as petitioner Ramesh Aggarwal is concerned, he is alleged to have connived with Birmati, Kusum and their accomplice Sunita, Saina Mirza, Pale Ram and others in blackmailing the complainant and extracting money from the complainant.
So far as petitioner Saina Mirza is concerned she is alleged to be member of the gang of Sunita, Birmati and Kusum who had participated in the blackmailing and extortion of money from complainant Kashmiri Lal.
It has been argued by counsel for the petitioners that they have been falsely implicated in the case merely because an FIR under Section 376 IPC has been registered against the complainant, prior to the lodging of the present FIR.
I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and carefully taken into consideration the conversations of Saina Mirza with other accuesd. Ramesh has claimed that he is neighbour of complainant living in New Housing Board Colony. The complainant has previous enmity with the petitioner with regard to the rented accommodation in which petitioner had CRM M-20986 of 2011 [8] been living for the last many years which was situated near the house of the petitioner. The petitioner has taken the said house on rent from Bhim Sain who tried to dispossess the petitioner. The petitioner filed a civil suit against Bhim Saini and got an intention. Bhim Sain sold the house to wife of Ashu who again tried to dispossess the petitioner. On account of said circumstance, he has been falsely involved in the case at the behest of the complainant to pressurize the petitioner to vacate the rented accommodation. It is claimed that his name is not mentioned in the FIR. It is claimed that the petitioner was contacted by son of the complainant to help him as such the petitioner contacted Birmati on telephone to help the son of the complainant.
A perusal of the police file and the reply filed indicates that the following is the evidence collected against petitioner Birmati:-
"She is carrying the business of prostitution. Audio recording has been done in Pen drive. Birmati in furtherance of conspiracy constituted unlawful assembly and came to the factory of the complainant and demanded Rs.4/5 lacs from Kashmiri Lal. He did not pay the money. FIR No. 418 dated May 23, 2011 under Sections 376/506 IPC was registered through Kusum which has already been cancelled by the police. Disclosure statements of Pooja, Jyoti and Rajo indicate her involvement. The mobile phone call details of Birmati's Phone (98132-88326) proves that she made several telephonic calls CRM M-20986 of 2011 [9] with other accused in this case since May 22, 2011 to May 26, 2011 detailed below. After May 26, 2011 there is regular telephonic conversation.
i) 20 calls Poonam 2 Pooja (Arrested already)
ii) 14 calls Pale Ram (arrested already)
iii) 17 calls Raj Rani (Arrested already)
iv) 9 calls Sunita Sharma
v) 5 calls Ramesh Aggarwal
vi) 7 calls Kashmiri Lal & Rakesh (complainant Party) Statements of Kashmiri Lal, Rakesh and other witnesses specifically stated against the petitioner."
Following evidence has been collected against petitioner Sunita Sharma:-
"a. During investigation, it surfaced against accused Sunita that she is using Mobile Phone No. 9812782155 which is in the name of Satbir co- accused, driver of Sunita. All accused found talking with each other on their mobile phones. Sunita has extorted Rs.1 lac directly from Kashmiri Lal complainant in the presence of Rakesh Kumar and Pawan Kumar whose statement are recorded u/s 161 Cr.P.C.
CRM M-20986 of 2011 [10]
b. In disclosure statements of Pooja, Jyoti, Rajo, they
stated that Sunita had paid Rs.5000/- to all accused as per their respective shares and had retained Rs.50000/- out of extorted money of Rs.1 lac.
c. Sunita had also prayed a prominent and aggressive role in this case and is of criminal nature. A case FIR No. 130 dated 13.4.2011 u/s 376/120-B IPC was registered in Police Station Model Town, Panipat against Sunita. In this case Sunita facilitated accused Joginder Swami to commit rape with Raj Rani, and another FIR No. 19 dated 12.6.2011 u/s 376/506/120-B IPC was registered in P.S. Muni Ki Reti, Uttrakhand against Ram Saroop Brahmchari. She is the witness of that case. The above said case was registered on the statement of complainant Richa wife of Rakesh Kumar and Kamlesh wife of Sadhu Ram. Thereafter, the matter was compromised out of court by submitting affidavits before SSP, Tehri Garhwal in which both complainant had stated that they had lodged FIR case/ FIR against Ram Swaroop at the instance of Sunita.
CRM M-20986 of 2011 [11]
d. Sunita disclosed the name of her husband Naresh
Kumar whereas in reality the name of husband of Sunita is Suresh Kumar. Further, it is also surfaced in the investigation that said Sunita is instrumental in effecting compromise in the case FIR No. 661 dated 12.11.2010 u/s 376 IPC P.S. Chandani Bagh, Panipat, which was got lodged by Kusum, her co-accused against Purshotam Sharma and thereafter the matter was patched up by prosecutrix after extorting the huge amount from Purshotam Sharma. Recovery of Rs.50000/- is to be effected from accused Sunita as per the disclosure statement of Pooja, Jyoti and Rajo and where about of 2 un-named is to be disclosed by Sunita.
e. That there is specific allegation against Sunita Sharma in FIR that she (Sunita) had extorted rupees one lakh from complainant party. f. That mobile phone call details of Sunita Sharma phone (98127-82155) is providing that she made several telephonic calls with other accused in this case and all the accused are well known to each other.
CRM M-20986 of 2011 [12]
g. That case FIR No. 656 dated 1.8.2011 u/s 384/376
(2) (G)/ 120-B IPC, 7/13 of PC Act, 3/4/5/ Immoral Traffic Act, 1956 is pending against Sunita Sharma."
Following evidence has been collected against petitioner Sania Mirza:-
"a. That during the investigation, it surfaced against Sania Mirza that Sania Mirza is using the telephone Mobile connection No. 9255104496 and I.D. was taken in the name of one Rohit Chandana. This act of Sania Mirza is indicating the fact that Sania is of dubious character. She had with Mr.Rakesh Kumar and she is instrumental in extorting huge amount of Rs.4/5 lacs from the complainant Kashmiri Lal. A complainant from the inhabitants of the locality has been moved to S.P., Panipat on 22.9.2005 against Sania Mirza that she is indulging in immoral acts and is running a prostitution centre/ Brothel. Further, it has also submitted that on 25.2.2002 one Inam Ali Ansari, State Secretary to Minority Affairs had also moved an application against Sania Mirza that CRM M-20986 of 2011 [13] she used to extort money from various persons of the city, Panipat.
b. That there is specific allegation against Sania Mirza in FIR that she (Sania Mirza) demanded money from Kashmiri Lal complainant. c. That mobile phone call details of Sania Mirza'a phone (92551-04496) proved that she made several telephonic calls with other accused and complainant of this case since 22.5.2011. d. That 161 Cr.P.C. statement of Kashmiri Lal, Rakesh and other witnesses categorically stated against the petitioner.
e. That recorded telephonic conversation proves that it is a racket. The language used in conversation proves that money has been demanded by the petitioners. The translated conversation of Sania Mirza with Rakesh son of complainant has been produced."
Following evidence has been collected against petitioner Ramesh Aggarwal:-
"a. That petitioner Ramesh Aggarwal is neighbour of complainant Kashmiri Lal. He conspired with CRM M-20986 of 2011 [14] Birmati and had tried to extort money through Birmati etc. b. That disclosure statement of Poonam, Jyoti, Raj Rani categorically mentioned the name of Ramesh Aggarwal in complicity of this crime. c. That telephonic call detail of Ramesh Aggarwal phone (94160-07755) proved that petitioner have friendly terms with complainant and accused person.
d. That recorded telephonic conversation proves that it is a racket. The language used in conversation proves that petitioner involved and known to accused in this case FIR and they talk regarding matter in issue. The translated conversation of Ramesh Aggarwal with Birmati has been produced."
In view of the above sufficient evidence gathered and the seriousness of allegations that all the abovesaid petitioners connived together to misuse the legislature of law by levelling false allegations with an objective to extort money, no extraordinary exceptional circumstances exist to grant the concession of pre-arrest bail to the petitioners.
All the four petitions are hereby dismissed.
August 6, 2012 (M.M.S.BEDI) CRM M-20986 of 2011 [15] sanjay JUDGE