Delhi District Court
Mr. Mohit Kumar Verma vs State Of Nct Of Delhi on 17 February, 2023
IN THE COURT OF MS. SWATI KATIYAR,
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-07,
EAST, KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
Cr Rev No. 115/2020
1. Mr. Mohit Kumar Verma
S/o Sh. Pradeep Kumar Verma
2. Ms. Simmi Verma
W/o sh. Mahender Kumar Verma
3. Ms. Bhawana Verma
D/o. Sh. Mahender Kumar Verma
4. Mr. Sahil Verma
S/o. Sh. Mahender Kumar Verma
5. Mr. Pradeep Kumar Verma
S/o. Late Sh. Bhagwan Das Verma
6. Mr. Mahender Kumar Verma (proceedings abated)
S/o. Late Sh. Bhagwan Das Verma
All R/o. 40/4 Guru Ram Das Nagar
Laxmi Nagar, Delhi-92. ............... Revisionists
Vs.
1. State of NCT of Delhi
Digitally signed
by SWATI
SWATI KATIYAR
KATIYAR Date:
2023.02.17
13:23:38 +0530
Cr. Rev No.115/2020 Mohit Kumar Verma Vs. State 1 /13
2. Ms. Meenu Verma
W/o. Sh. Ramesh Kumar Verma
R/o. 40/4 Ground Floor,
Guru Ram Das Nagar,
Laxmi Nagar, Delhi-92. .........Respondents
Date of Institution : 13.10.2020
Date of reserving for order: 20.01.2023
Date of Order : 17.02.2023
ORDER:
1. This order shall dispose off the present Criminal Revision Petition filed by revisionists against order dated 13.01.2020 passed by Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate (Mahila Court-01), East, KKD in FIR No. 761/2016 PS Shakarpur in case titled as 'State v. Mohit Kumar Verma & Ors.' whereby Ld. Trial Court had dismissed the discharge applications of revisionists and had ordered for framing of charges against revisionists under different sections.
2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that on 08.06.2016 vide DD NO. 66B and DD No. 85B, a call regarding quarrel was received in the police station and since matter pertained to family dispute, a kalandara was Digitally signed SWATI by SWATI KATIYAR KATIYAR Date: 2023.02.17 13:23:51 +0530 Cr. Rev No.115/2020 Mohit Kumar Verma Vs. State 2 /13 prepared and disposed off by the Ld. Executive Magistrate. Thereafter, a complaint u/s. 200 Cr.P.C alongwith an application u/s. 156(3) Cr.P.C was filed by the respondent no. 2 before Ld. Trial Court and status report was called from the police on the complaint. On 04.09.2016, the statement of complainant was recorded by the police officials of PS Shakarpur and on the basis of the same, FIR bearing no. 761/2016 PS Shakarpur was registered for offences punishable u/s. 354 D/509/506/427/34 of Indian Penal Code.
3. Cognizance of the offences was taken by Ld. Trial Court and revisionists were summoned vide order dated 23.02.2018.
4. Revisionists appeared before Ld. Trial Court and applications for discharge were moved on behalf of revisionist Bhawna, Simmi, Sahil and Mohit.
5. Vide order dated 13.01.2020, Ld. Trial Court dismissed the applications for discharge moved by revisionists Bhawna, Simmi, Sahil and Mohit and deemed Digitally signed by SWATI SWATI KATIYAR KATIYAR Date: 2023.02.17 13:24:08 +0530 Cr. Rev No.115/2020 Mohit Kumar Verma Vs. State 3 /13 it fit to frame charges against revisionists as under:
a) Mohit Kumar Verma charged u/s. 354 D/506/509/34 of Indian Penal Code.
b) Sahil Verma charged u/s. 354 D/506/509/34 of Indian Penal Code.
c) Mahender Kumar Verma charged u/s. 341/354 D/427/506/509/34 of Indian Penal Code
d) Pradeep Verma charged u/s. 354 D/506/509/34 of Indian Penal Code
e) Simmi and Bhawna charged u/s. 506/509/34 of Indian Penal Code.
6. It is against this order dated 13.01.2020 that the revisionists have preferred the present revision petition on the ground that order is incorrect and arbitrary. It is stated that the revisionists and respondent no. 2 are family members and residing in the same property i.e. 40/4, GRD Nagar, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi-92 at different floors. It is stated that respondent no. 2 is residing at the ground floor while the revisionist no. 6 was owner of the first floor and revisionist no. 5 is the owner of the second floor.
Digitally signed by SWATI KATIYARSWATI Date:
KATIYAR 2023.02.17 13:24:21 +0530 Cr. Rev No.115/2020 Mohit Kumar Verma Vs. State 4 /13
7. It is stated that the husband of respondent no. 2 is the younger brother of revisionist no. 5 and 6 and there are property disputes between the parties. It is stated that respondent no. 2 and her husband do not allow any of the revisionists to park their vehicle in front of their gate. The respondent no. 2 has also put CCTV cameras at the front gate and on the stairs and keep watch on the activities of revisionists.
8. It is stated that the respondent no. 2 and her husband do not allow the revisionists to sell the property and they misbehave with the customers. It is stated that on 08.06.2016, a dispute started on the issue of parking of vehicles and the vehicles of revisionist no. 5 and 6 were damaged by the husband of respondent no. 2 due to which a quarrel started between the parties in the street.
9. It is stated that both the parties called the police who visited the spot and made separate kalandaras against the parties. The kalandaras were disposed off by the Ld. Executive Magistrate, Shakarpur, however, with malafide intention respondent no. 2 at behest of her husband filed a Digitally signed SWATI by SWATI KATIYAR KATIYAR Date: 2023.02.17 13:24:36 +0530 Cr. Rev No.115/2020 Mohit Kumar Verma Vs. State 5 /13 complaint against the revisionists on the basis of which present FIR was registered.
10. It is stated that the revisionists have been falsely implicated in the present case by respondent no. 2 to pressurize the revisionists to sell their property at cheaper rates. It is submitted that respondent no. 2 produced CCTV footage to the IO who without verifying its authenticity and without sending to the LAB has filed the same alongwith charge-sheet before Ld. Trial Court.
11. It is submitted that Ld. Trial Court has failed to consider that there is a dispute of property between the parties and without FSL report, the CCTV footage cannot be considered as authentic electronic evidence and cannot be relied upon at the time of framing of charges. It is stated that the CCTV footage which has been edited by respondent no. 2 only shows a short quarrel between the parties and the scenes which show the fault of respondent no. 2 have been intentionally deleted by respondent no. 2.
12. It is stated that Ld. Trial Court has failed to Digitally signed by SWATI SWATI KATIYAR KATIYAR Date:
2023.02.17 13:24:52 +0530 Cr. Rev No.115/2020 Mohit Kumar Verma Vs. State 6 /13 appreciate the settled proposition of law that there must be some material evidence on record which can give rise to a grave suspicion and not some suspicion against the accused. It is stated that the false allegations have been leveled against the revisionists and thus the order dated
13.01.2020 is liable to be set aside.
13. Notice of the revision petition was issued to the respondents. Ld. Addl. PP for the State appeared on behalf of respondent no. 1 and respondent no. 2 appeared through her counsel on 08.03.2022 before the Court.
14. During the pendency of revision petition, revisionist no. 6 Mahender Kumar Verma was stated to have expired and copy of his death certificate was placed on record. Respondent no. 2 admitted the factum of death of revisionist no. 6 Mahender Kumar Verma.
15. Respondent no. 2 filed reply to the revision petition denying the averments of revisionists. It was stated by respondent no. 2 that Ld. Trial Court has specified the roles of each of the revisionists after going through the file Digitally signed SWATI by SWATI KATIYAR KATIYAR Date: 2023.02.17 13:25:06 +0530 Cr. Rev No.115/2020 Mohit Kumar Verma Vs. State 7 /13 and thus, there is no infirmity in the impugned order. It was thus prayed that the revision petition may be dismissed.
16. Ld. Addl. PP for respondent no. 1 submitted that there is sufficient material on record to frame charges against the revisionists.
17. Arguments were advanced at length by both the parties and written arguments were also filed by the revisionists.
18. I have considered the submissions and perused the record carefully.
19. Revisionist no. 6 Sh. Mahender Kumar Verma expired during pendency of the petition and proceedings against revisionist no. 6 stood abated.
20. With respect to remaining accused persons/ revisionists, Ld. Trial Court observed that ingredients of offence punishable under Section 354D of Indian Penal Code are Digitally signed by SWATI SWATI KATIYAR KATIYAR Date:
2023.02.17 13:25:20 +0530 Cr. Rev No.115/2020 Mohit Kumar Verma Vs. State 8 /13 attracted against accused/revisionists Mohit Kumar Verma, Sahil Verma and Pradeep Verma.
21. Section 354D of Indian Penal Code states, (1) Any man who--
(i) follows a woman and contacts, or attempts to contact such woman to foster personal interaction repeatedly despite a clear indication of disinterest by such woman; or
(ii) monitors the use by a woman of the internet, email or any other form of electronic communication, commits the offence of stalking.
22. Thus, to establish the offence punishable under Section 354D IPC, it is necessary to establish that accused followed a woman and contacted, or attempted to contact her to foster personal interaction repeatedly despite showing clear disinterest by the said woman or the accused monitored the use by the woman of the internet, email or any other form of electronic communication.
23. With respect to the second part of offence, there are no allegations that accused persons/ revisionists used to monitor the use of internet, email or any other electronic Digitally signed SWATI by SWATI KATIYAR KATIYAR Date: 2023.02.17 13:25:41 +0530 Cr. Rev No.115/2020 Mohit Kumar Verma Vs. State 9 /13 communication by the complainant or her daughters. With respect to the first part, complainant has mentioned in her complaint, " yeh aksar meri betiyon ka peecha karte rehte hai..". However, the complainant has not specified as to who follows her daugthers and when her daughters were allegedly stalked. The averment with regard to stalking in the complaint is vague. Even in statement u/s. 164 Cr.P.C, complainant has mentioned, " yeh log meri do badi betiyon ka peecha karte hai.." but has failed to specify as to who are 'yeh log' and when did they follow the daughters of complainant.
24. The statements of husband and daughters of complainant were also recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C where they mentioned that accused Mohit and Sahil follow the daughters. However, again the statements do not specify any such date or time, when accused persons/ revisionists followed the daughters of complainant or the manner in which the accused persons attempted to contact the daughters of the complainant. No specific incident of stalking has been alleged. Merely on the basis of vague and omnibus statements, charge for offence punishable Digitally signed SWATI by SWATI KATIYAR KATIYAR Date: 2023.02.17 13:25:53 +0530 Cr. Rev No.115/2020 Mohit Kumar Verma Vs. State 10 /13 under Section 354D IPC cannot be framed. Hence, in view of observations made above, accused/ revisionist Mohit Verma, Sahil Verma and Pradeep Verma stand discharged of offence punishable under Section 354D of Indian Penal Code.
25. The other offence alleged against accused persons is offence punishable under Section 506 of Indian Penal Code. The complainant has stated in her complaint that accused Pradeep Kumar Verma, Mohit Verma, deceased Mahender Verma, Simmi Verma, Sahil Verma and Bhawna Verma threatened to kill them on the day of incident. She also alleged that her brother-in laws and their sons threatened to throw acid on them. In her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C, complainant has stated, "..Tezaab unke upar daalne ki dhamki dete hai. Yeh dhamki dete hai ki tumhari tanki mein zehar dalwa denge..." The husband and daughters of complainant in their statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C have also made similar averments. Now, whether the alleged threats extended by accused persons caused any alarm to the complainant or not or the intention of accused persons Digitally signed by SWATI SWATI KATIYAR KATIYAR Date: 2023.02.17 13:26:22 +0530 Cr. Rev No.115/2020 Mohit Kumar Verma Vs. State 11 /13 can be gathered only after leading of evidence. There are allegations of criminal intimidation against accused/revisionists Pradeep Verma, Mohit Verma, Sahil Verma, Simmi Verma and Bhawna Verma and prima facie ingredients of offence punishable u/s. 506 of Indian Penal Code are attracted against them.
26. So far as offence punishable under Section 509 of India Penal Code is concerned, again there are specific allegations against accused persons/ revisionists Pradeep Verma, Mohit Verma, Sahil Verma, Bhawna Verma and Simmi Verma of abusing the complainant by using filthy language. The husband of complainant has mentioned specific words used by accused persons/ revisionists in his statement u/s. 161 Cr.P.C. Whether those words amounted to insulting modesty of complainant cannot be determined without the evidence and hence, an opportunity needs to be given to the prosecution to lead evidence and establish its allegations.
27. In view of aforesaid discussion, the accused persons/ revisionists Pradeep Verma, Mohit Verma and Sahil Verma Digitally signed SWATI by SWATI KATIYAR KATIYAR Date: 2023.02.17 13:26:37 +0530 Cr. Rev No.115/2020 Mohit Kumar Verma Vs. State 12 /13 are discharged of offences punishable u/s. 354D of Indian Penal Code. However, there is sufficient evidence on record to frame charges for offences punishable under Section 506/509 of Indian Penal Code against accused persons/ revisionists Pradeep Verma, Sahil Verma, Mohit Verma, Simmi Verma and Bhavna Verma.
28. The impugned order dated 13.01.2020 is accordingly modified to this extent. The revision petition is partly allowed.
TCR be sent back alongwith a copy of this order.
Revision file be consigned to record room after due compliance.
Announced in the Open Court Digitally signed SWATI by SWATI KATIYAR on 17.02.2023. KATIYAR Date: 2023.02.17 13:26:52 +0530 (SWATI KATIYAR) ASJ-07, East, KKD Delhi / 17.02.2023.
Cr. Rev No.115/2020 Mohit Kumar Verma Vs. State 13 /13