Delhi High Court
Ms. Rekha Vohra Bhalla vs State & Ors. on 25 May, 2022
Author: Asha Menon
Bench: Asha Menon
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Pronounced on: 25th May, 2022
+ CRL.M.C. 505/2020
MS. REKHA VOHRA BHALLA ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Rajeshwar Singh, Ms. Neeraj
Singh and Ms. Akanksha Singh,
Advocates
Versus
STATE & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Ms. Manjeet Arya, APP for State
with SI Nagendra Kumar.
Mr.Sudhir Nandarajog, Senior
Advocate with Ms. Mannat Sandhu,
Advocate for R-2 to R-4.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE ASHA MENON
JUDGMENT
1. This petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. by the complainant in FIR No.22/2009 registered under Sections 506/509/34 IPC at PS Hazrat Nizamuddin Delhi against the order dated 30.09.2019 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge - 03, S.E. Saket Courts.
2. It may be noted at this juncture, that vide order dated 23rd September, 2016 the learned Metropolitan Magistrate („MM‟)-03/SE, Saket Courts had directed the framing of charge against the respondents No.2 to 4 for offences under Sections 506, 509 read with 34 IPC. Aggrieved, respondents No.2 to 4 filed a revision which was allowed by the learned ASJ-03/SE, Saket Courts vide the impugned order dated 30th September, 2019, discharging the accused, namely respondents No.2 to 4, Signature Not Verified CRL.M.C. 505/2020 Page 1 of 7 Digitally Signed By:MANJEET KAUR Signing Date:26.05.2022 17:55:59 and thus allowing the criminal revision petition.
3. Mr. Rajeshwar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in the impugned order there has been no discussion whatsoever, in respect of the offences under Section 509 read with 34 IPC. Therefore, the order be set aside and the matter be remanded. It is also submitted that there is no doubt that the incident had occurred and the complainant had made the statement to the Police about how she had been grappled and assaulted, abused and threatened and her statement was sufficient to frame the charge against the accused persons, namely the respondents No.2 to 4. On this ground too, learned counsel urged that the order be set aside and that of the learned MM restored and the matter be remanded to the learned Trial Court for trial as per law.
4. Mr. Sudhir Nandarajog, learned senior counsel for the respondents No.2 to 4 on the other hand, submitted that a civil case is already pending between the parties and the present criminal case has been filed only with an intention to somehow pressurize the respondents No.2 to 4. It is submitted that no witness examined by the Investigating Officer (IO) has supported the petitioner in her allegations of having been assaulted or abused. Learned senior counsel has drawn attention of this Court to the statements of the witnesses recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., being part of the charge-sheet and placed on the record as Annexure A-3 (pages 63 to 70 and translated version placed from page No.71 to 78). It was submitted that there was no error in the impugned judgment and the petition be dismissed.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and I have perused the record. The Court would exercise its powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
Signature Not Verified CRL.M.C. 505/2020 Page 2 of 7 Digitally Signed By:MANJEET KAUR Signing Date:26.05.2022 17:55:59only when there was reason to do so, on account of perversity in the impugned order or miscarriage of justice. On a perusal of the impugned order, no such circumstances are revealed. The charge-sheet is Annexure A-3, wherein, after complete investigations it has been reported that the petitioner had herself sold out the first and second floors of the House No. I-1, Jungpura, Mathura Road, New Delhi to the respondent No.2 Kuldeep Kumar and his wife Sadhna. The incident took place on the issue of parking when the petitioner sought to place a „No Parking Board‟ which was opposed by the respondents No.2 to 4, who claimed that after due inquiry from the traffic police, they had learnt that the petitioner had no permission of any kind to place a „No Parking Board‟ on the grill.
6. Though the complainant in the FIR has complained about the pushing and abuses, but not one witness examined by the Investigating Officer (IO) has supported her. Nine witnesses have been examined by the IO, they are either shopkeepers or residents of the area. Though they have all stated that on 20th January, 2010, an altercation had taken place between the petitioner and respondents No.2 to 4, they have stated that it was on account of the placing of a „No Parking Board‟ by the petitioner. According to all of them, the respondents No.2 to 4 had objected to the placing of the said board but the petitioner had insisted that she would place the board come what may.
7. Their statements may be adverted to briefly:
Shri Ram Gopal Sehgal, who is an electrician, has referred to an "altercation" and the absence of any assault or injuries being sustained by any of the parties.
Shri Kawar Jeet Singh, who is a resident of the locality has said Signature Not Verified CRL.M.C. 505/2020 Page 3 of 7 Digitally Signed By:MANJEET KAUR Signing Date:26.05.2022 17:55:59 that there were "arguments" as the petitioner wanted to park her car at a particular spot and wanted to place a „No Parking Board‟ which was opposed to by respondents No.2 to 4. But according to him there were no arguments (bahas) and no quarrel (jhagda). Shri Sirajuddin, who does business of kabari, stated that the parties were "talking" (baat) to each other over the issue of parking board and there was no „jhagda‟ or „dhakkamukki' i.e., no quarrel or grappling or use of criminal force. Shri Prahlad Kumar, who is a resident of the area, also stated that there was only an "altercation" on the issue of parking board and neither was there any quarrel nor use of criminal force (jhagda dhakkamukki).
Pappu, who irons clothes in the locality, has stated that the parties were "talking" to each other over the issue of parking board and there was no quarrel or the use of criminal force („Jhagda dhakkamukki‟).
Similarly, Ram Prakash Malhotra, a resident of the area, also stated about the quarrel over the parking board and the assertion of the petitioner that it was her house and therefore, she could put the board wherever she liked. Apart from this "discussion" (baatein), there was no quarrel or grappling („Jhagda dhakkamukki‟).
Shri Atma Ram, who is also a resident of the locality, has gone on to state that the complainant was shouting that she would involve Kuldeep in a case, of which he will always remember, while respondent No.2 insisted that she could not place her board Signature Not Verified CRL.M.C. 505/2020 Page 4 of 7 Digitally Signed By:MANJEET KAUR Signing Date:26.05.2022 17:55:59 as it was a residential colony. He too stated that there was no quarrel or use of criminal force ('Jhagda dhakkamukki‟). The last statement on the file is of Govind, who sells flowers in the locality. He too has stated that the quarrel was on the placing of „No Parking Board‟ and while the petitioner was insisting that since the house belonged to her, she would park her vehicle at a particular spot and place the board to enable her to do so, the respondents No.2 to 4 opposed the placing of the board there and apart from that, there was no quarrel or use of criminal force („Jhagda Dhakamukki‟).
8. While it may be true that in a given case, the sole statement of the complainant could be considered, to proceed with the trial, what is to be seen is whether the impugned order has resulted in any miscarriage of justice, as the sole version of the petitioner was not accepted.
9. A perusal of the FIR would show that her allegations are that the respondent No.2 had "pushed her aggressively" and "abused her" and the respondent, his wife, his brothers and nephews, their wives, "all made very vulgar and cheap remarks on her". She alleges that he "threatened" her and "would kill" her. Unfortunately, these statements do not find any support from the witnesses to the incident. The petitioner was interested in causing discomfiture to the respondent No.2, as has been recorded in the statement of Atma Ram, who is a resident of the locality and thus her own neighbor. The charge-sheet also refers to another FIR bearing No.722/2005 registered under Sections 323 and 448 IPC, by the present petitioner and which is pending trial. There is also a civil suit between the parties. In the Signature Not Verified CRL.M.C. 505/2020 Page 5 of 7 Digitally Signed By:MANJEET KAUR Signing Date:26.05.2022 17:55:59 backdrop of all these facts, the sole statement of the petitioner not being found sufficient and the discharge of the accused/respondents No.2 to 4 by the learned Sessions Court cannot be described as perverse or resulting in miscarriage of justice.
10. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner that as the learned Revisionary Court had not discussed anything about the offence under Section 509 IPC, the impugned order was vitiated, is an argument that does not hold water. It may be noted at this juncture, that the orders of the learned MM dated 23rd September, 2016, whereby directions for framing of charge were issued, has discussed no aspect of the case, except to observe that there were allegations in the FIR of the use of vulgar and cheap language and threat to kill the complainant. This reasoning was not found sufficient by the learned ASJ to frame charge. The reasons for such a conclusion have been elucidated in the impugned order. It has been rightly held that criminal intimidation as defined under Section 503 IPC is something more than mere aggression. She herself has not claimed that she was alarmed by any word uttered by the respondents No.2 to 4. No criminal force seems to have been used upon her. She has failed to disclose the words that were used against her by the respondents, to enable the court to assess whether the words were insulting. She has described no gesture which could be considered to be an insult to her modesty.
11. In any event, the statement of the witnesses as also the complaint, establishes that the petitioner and the respondents No.2 to 4 had quarreled when the petitioner had insisted on parking her car at a particular spot and placing a „No Parking Board‟ for which she was not authorized. It is natural that the insistence of the petitioner to place the board and the Signature Not Verified CRL.M.C. 505/2020 Page 6 of 7 Digitally Signed By:MANJEET KAUR Signing Date:26.05.2022 17:55:59 insistence of the respondents No.2 to 4 not to permit it, resulted in an altercation. Beyond this, there is nothing to show that there was any criminal intimidation or outraging of modesty.
12. In these circumstances, the petition is found to be without merit and is accordingly dismissed.
13. The judgment be uploaded on the website forthwith.
(ASHA MENON) JUDGE MAY 25, 2022 ak Signature Not Verified CRL.M.C. 505/2020 Page 7 of 7 Digitally Signed By:MANJEET KAUR Signing Date:26.05.2022 17:55:59