Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Delhi District Court

In Re vs The State (Delhi Administration) on 24 February, 2022

            IN THE COURT OF MR. DHARMESH SHARMA
      PRINCIPAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE : WEST DISTRICT
                    TIS HAZARI COURTS : DELHI

Criminal Revision No. 137/2019
CNR No. DLWT01-003471-2019

In re:
Tarun Trikha
S/o Sh. Vinay Trikha,
R/o B-121, 1st Floor,
Janta Colony, Shivaji Enclave,
New Delhi-110018                           ......... Petitioner
           Versus
1. The State (Delhi Administration)

2. Sh. Naresh Kharab,
   S/o Sh. Chatar Singh
   R/o Flat No.175, Veer Awas Apartments
   Sector-18, Pocket-A,
   Dwarka, New Delhi

    Also at:
    1592, Sector-7,
    Rohtak, Haryana-124001

3. Sh.Ravi Kumar,
   S/o Sh. Bajrang,
   R/o RZD-58, Nihal Vihar,
   New Delhi                               ....... Respondents

           Date of filing              :   02.05.2019
           Date of hearing arguments   :   14.02.2022
           Date of judgment            :   24.02.2022

Appearances:
Sh. Alok Kumar Pandey, Advocate for the petitioner/revisionist.
Sh. Atul Kumar Shrivastava, Ld. Addl. PP for the State/R-1.
Sh. Pawan Kumar Shishodia, Advocate for respondent Nos.2 & 3.

CR No. 1372019 & CA No. 105/2019                                  Page 1 of 9
                                        AND

Criminal Appeal No. 105/2019
CNR No. DLWT01-003955-2019

In re:
1. Naresh Kharab
   S/o Late Sh. Chatter Singh
   R/o Village Ugalan,
   District Hisar, Haryana

2. Ravi Kumar
   S/o Sh. Bajrang
   R/o RZD 58, Nihal Vihar,
   New Delhi                                 ........ Appellants

      Versus
1. Tarun Trikha
   R/o B-121, 1st Floor,
   Janta Colony, Shivaji Enclave,
   New Delhi

     Also at:
     7/6369, Street No.3,
     Dev Nagar, Karol Bagh,
     New Delhi-1100

2. Anand Parkash S.I.
   Police Station,
   Khyala, Delhi                             ......... Respondents


           Date of filing                :   17.05.2019
           Date of hearing arguments     :   14.02.2022
           Date of judgment              :   24.02.2022

Appearances:
Sh. Pawan Kumar Shishodia, Advocate for appellants.
Sh. Alok Kumar Pandey, for respondent No.1.
respondent No.2 in person.

CR No. 1372019 & CA No. 105/2019                                     Page 2 of 9
 ORDER:

1. This common order shall decided the above noted Criminal Revision and also the Criminal Appeal filed by the respective parties assailing common order dated 12.04.2019, passed by the Court of Sh. Babru Bhan, the then Ld. MM-04, (West), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi. The above noted Criminal Revision as also the Criminal Appeal are based on common facts raising common question of law and facts, and therefore, can be conveniently disposed off together.

BRIEF FACTS:

2. Briefly stated, a complaint was instituted by the petitioner/revisionist Tarun Trikha in Criminal Revision-137/2019 on 07.01.2017 under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 along-with an application under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. The case of the petitioner/revisionist Tarun Trikha was that he was introduced to proposed accused No.1 Naresh Kharab in the year 2009 and he started providing some consultancy services to him dealing in direct selling of companies. It was alleged that proposed accused No.1 Naresh Kharab in order to extort money from him, called him to a place near Rajouri Garden Metro Station, where he was introduced to proposed accused No.2 Ravi Kumar; and that both the proposed accused persons showed him some documents suggesting that he was drawer or executor of the same and they demanded a sum of Rs. Three crores from him, failing which he was threatened not only with death but also to get him implicated in some false case. It was alleged that the accused persons had got registered some fake companies by forging his signatures, and therefore, he sought criminal action against the proposed accused CR No. 1372019 & CA No. 105/2019 Page 3 of 9 persons as per law.

3. Perusal of the record shows that the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. was dismissed by the Court of Sh. Vishal Pahuja, the then Ld. MM-04, (West), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi vide order dated 27.09.2017 on the ground that FIR No. 44/2017 had already been registered at the instance of Ravi Kumar by the Economic Offences Wing, Crime Branch, Delhi and the matter was under

investigation. Thus, Ld. MM holding that the FIR was based on the same alleged documents and the second complaint on the same was not maintainable, not only dismissed the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. but also the complaint as a whole, being not maintainable. It appears that Naresh Kharab and Ravi Kumar, the proposed accused persons moved an application under Section 340 Cr.P.C. on 31.07.2017 but no order was passed by the Ld. MM while passing order dated 27.09.2017 on the same, they preferred Criminal Revision No. 40/2018 against order dated 22.12.2017 whereby the Ld. MM declined to revive the proceedings under Section 340 Cr.P.C. and the Court of Sh. Jagdish Kumar, the then Ld. ASJ-02, (West), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi allowed the Criminal Revision and referred the matter back to the Ld. Trial Court to consider the application of the revisionists under Section 340 Cr.P.C. vide Judgment dated 31.03.2018. The complainant Tarun Trikha also aggrieved of the order dated 27.09.2017 preferred Criminal Revision No. 02/2018 and the same was allowed by the Court of Sh. Jagdish Kumar, the then Ld. ASJ-02, (West), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi with directions that the Ld. Trial Court shall afford another opportunity of hearing to substantiate CR No. 1372019 & CA No. 105/2019 Page 4 of 9 the allegations made in the complaint and proceed with the complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. as per law.

4. Perusal of the record shows that on remand, the matter was heard afresh by the Ld. Successor Court of Sh. Babru Bhan, the then Ld. MM-04, (West), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi and vide impugned order dated 12.04.2019 again the same order was visited viz. dismissal of the complaint of the petitioner/revisionist Tarun Trikha as also dismissal of the application under Section 340 Cr.P.C. by the opposite party, namely Naresh Kharab and Ravi Kumar. The operative portion of the impugned order reads as under:-

"The case FIR No. 44/17 was registered against the complainant wherein the same facts as alleged in the present complaint were being investigated by the police. The purpose of registration of FIR is to collect evidence and to ascertain the truth. That exercise is already being carried out in case Fir No. 44/17. It appears that complainant has filed this complaint just to pressurize the complainant in FIR No. 44/17. Proceedings further with the complaint is not going to serve any purpose. Hence, the present complaint accordingly, dismissed.

An application u/s 340 Cr.P.C. has also been moved on behalf of applicant Naresh Kharab and Ravi Kumar for initiating the criminal prosecution against the complainant Tarun Tirkha and the IO of the case Sh. Anand Parkash u/s 191/193/195/196 of the IPC.

Ld. counsel for the applicant has submitted that complainant has furnished false evidence before the Court in the present complaint. He has also taken reference of a report of process server in this regard. Ld. Counsel has raised the contention that the complainant mislead the Court by furnishing false address. Besides the alleged false address furnished by the complainant, nothing has been produced by the applicant to show that the complainant has filed a false complaint against the accused persons. As far as the address of the complainant is concerned, in considered opinion of this Court, furnishing false address, would not bring his conduct into the definition of giving a false evidence. This Court do not deem it expedient in interest of justice to further proceed with the present application. Hence the present application is also dismissed. The file alongwith the application be consigned to record room. "

5. The impugned order is assailed by the petitioner/revisionist

- complainant Tarun Trikha inter alia on the grounds that the Ld. Trial Court failed to appreciate that FIR No. 44/2017 was registered against the complainant and the counter-complaint/FIR by the complainant was very much maintainable, for which reference was made to decision in the case of Surender Kausik & Ors. v State of U.P., (2013) 5 SCC 148, Anju Chaudhary v. State of U.P. & Anr., (2013) 6 SCC 384 besides the case of Upkar Singh v. Ved Prakash & Ors. and Kari Choudhary v. Sitate Devi & Ors. Lastly, the impugned order is assailed on the ground that the Ld. Trial Court failed to afford and given an opportunity to lead pre-summoning evidence so as to substantiate his allegations.

6. In so far as Criminal Appeal filed by the opposite party, namely Naresh Kharab and Ravi Kumar is concerned, the impugned order is assailed inter alia on the ground that the Ld. Trial Court failed to appreciate that vide order dated 22.12.2017, the complaint was not only dismissed on the ground of inadequate evidence but for submitting false address of the proposed accused persons; and that not only the respondent No.1 Tarun Trikha submitted false address of the proposed accused persons but even respondent No.2 IO/SI Anand Prakash of PS Khyala was in collusion with him, who submitted inquiry report/ATR, and therefore, both the respondents were liable to be proceeded under Section 340 Cr.P.C. for commission of offence punishable under Sections 191/193/195/196 IPC.

DECISION:

7. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions advanced by the Ld. Counsel for the parties. I have also perused the trial Court record as well as documents besides written submissions filed by the Ld. Counsel for the parties.

8. At the outset, there is no merit either in the Criminal Revision or for that matter in the Criminal Appeal filed by the parties. This Court must show its utmost dismay and anguish that both the parties are indulging in gross abuse and misuse of the process of law and attempting to settle the personal scores that entails huge cost of litigation in terms of time and efforts of the Courts in dealing with such frivolous and vexatious complaints. First thing first, although it was conceded during the course of arguments that Crime Branch filed closure report in FIR No. 44/2017, which was accepted by the Court of Sh. Jitender Singh, Ld. ACMM, (West), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi vide order dated 11.09.2019, the present complaint by the petitioner/ revisionist Tarun Trikha is bereft of any specific allegations as to the date and time of alleged offences and it is bereft of any details as to which companies were allegedly falsely registered by using his forged signatures and other documents.

9. Further, the Ld. MM in the impugned order dated 12.04.2019 also noted the fact that no one was appearing for the complainant Tarun Trikha and the complaint appeared to have been filed only to pressurize the complainant Ravi Kumar in proceeding with the investigation in FIR No. 44/2017. Be that as it may, when CR No. 1372019 & CA No. 105/2019 Page 7 of 9 allegations in the complaint lack necessary factual narration, it is difficult to discern that any cognizable offence has been committed so as to warrant giving an opportunity to the petitioner/revisionist Tarun Trikha to lead pre-summoning evidence. Further, when it is manifest that he has never cared to pursue the complaint and infact there is attached no list of witnesses, who are proposed to be examined in the matter. The whole allegations of the complainant Tarun Trikha appear to be some kind of unguided missile without any legitimate purpose but probably to some how entangle the opposite party in nitty gritty of the criminal litigation.

10. In so far as as Criminal Appeal filed by the appellants Naresh Kharab and Ravi Kumar is concerned, merely because wrong address of the parties was furnished in the complaint and the IO conducted some enquiries and submitted a report, would not ipso facto lead to an inference that false evidence was created by the complainant. No adverse consequences have followed for the appellants nor an undue benefit is derived by the complainant Tarun Trikha. No offences within the meaning of Section 195(1)(b) of the Cr.P.C. appear to have been committed. The appellants Naresh Kharab and Ravi Kumar also appear to be ill-motivated to entangle the opposite party/ complainant Tarun Trikha in some criminal litigation or the other and make the whole proceedings a never ending saga. There is no case made out for proceeding under Section 340 Cr.P.C. so as to initiate the action under the proposed provisions of law.

11. In view of the foregoing discussion, both the revision petition as well as the Criminal Appeal are dismissed. The petitioner in the Criminal Revision No. 137/2019 is imposed with fine of Rs. 25,000/- to be deposited in the Saving Bank Account maintained by Delhi Bar Association at State Bank of India, Tis Hazari Courts Branch, Delhi. Likewise, the appellants Naresh Kharab and Ravi Kumar are imposed with costs/fine of Rs. 25,000/- to be paid jointly or severally with directions that the amount be deposited in Saving Bank Account maintained by Delhi Bar Association at State Bank of India, Tis Hazari Courts Branch, Delhi. The parties are given one month's time to deposit such amount of fine for filing absolutely frivolous and vexatious litigation and wasting the precious time of the Court. In case the fine is not deposited, the State shall be at liberty to initiate proceedings under Section 421 Cr.P.C. for recovery of such fine.

12. Trial Court record along-with copy of this order be sent back forthwith. A signed copy of this order be placed in each file and files of Criminal Revision as also the Criminal Appeal be consigned to Digitally signed the Record Room. DHARMESH by DHARMESH SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2022.02.26 18:51:01 +0530 Announced in the open Court (DHARMESH SHARMA) on 24th February, 2022 Principal District & Sessions Judge (West) Tis Hazari Courts: Delhi CR No. 1372019 & CA No. 105/2019 Page 9 of 9