Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Delhi District Court

State vs . Ankush Chaturvedi on 7 July, 2023

IN THE COURT OF Ms. T. PRIYADARSHINI, ADDITIONAL
    CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, SOUTH
        DISTRICT, SAKET COURT, NEW DELHI

                       CR CASE/4402/2017
                 STATE Vs. ANKUSH CHATURVEDI

State v. Ankush Chaturvedi
FIR No. 549/2016
Police Station : Saket

Under Section : 341/506(II) IPC
Date of institution           : 13.10.2017
Date of reserving             : 31.05.2023
Date of pronouncement : 07.07.2023


                                 JUDGMENT

a) Serial number of the case         : 4402/2017
b) Date of commission of             : 28.10.2015
   offence
c) Name of the complainant           : Sh. Virender Kumar Gupta
d) Name, parentage and               : Ankush Chaturvedi, S/o Sh. Dinesh
                                       Sharma, R/o H.No. 169-A/2, UGF,
   address of the accused              Jeewan Nagar Ashram, New Delhi.
e) Offence complained of             : 341/506 (Part II) IPC
f) Plea of the accused               : Accused pleaded not guilty
g) Final order                       : Acquitted
h) Date of final order               : 07.07.2023


State Vs. Ankush Chaturvedi       FIR No. 549/2016 PS Saket    Page 1 of 14
      BRIEF STATEMENT OF FACTS FOR THE DECISION

CASE OF THE PROSECUTION

1. Succinctly stated, the instant case was registered on the complaint/statement of complainant Sh. Virender Kumar Gupta, who on 28.10.2015 came to the court of Sh. Anu Malhotra, Court room no. 300, Saket Court Complex to attend a matter. At 02:00 pm, when he was trying to enter the said court, the nephew of Mukesh Chakravarti stopped him from entering the same, also threatened to kill him and to break his hands and legs. He also threatened the complainant to not give any complaint to the police.

2. Consequently, the FIR was registered against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 341/506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as "the IPC").

NOTICE

3. Vide order dated 09.03.2018, notice for the offences punishable under Sections 341/506(II) IPC was framed against the accused, who pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

ADMISSION/DENIAL OF DOCUMENTS

4. Vide order dated 03.11.2022, in compliance to the provisions of Section 294 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter "the Code"), the accused admitted the genuineness of; i) Endorsement by the DO; ii) The present FIR; and iii) DD No. 27A State Vs. Ankush Chaturvedi FIR No. 549/2016 PS Saket Page 2 of 14 dated 28.10.2015 vide Ex A1 to A3.

EVIDENCE OF THE PROSECUTION

5. Prosecution has examined four witnesses i.e. PW1 Sh. Virender Gupta (the complainant), PW2 SI Jatan Kumar, PW3 Vijay Nagar and PW4 ASI Rajeev Kumar [the investigating officer (IO)].

6. PW1 Sh. Virender Gupta, the complainant in the present case, deposed that on 28.10.2015, he was in the court of Ms. Anu Malhotra, no. 300, Ld. District & Sessions Judge, where he was complainant in an N.I. Act matter which was pending. At about 02:00 pm, when his matter was called, the accused forcefully restrained him from entering the court and also threatened him by saying "Tu mere chacha ke khilaf gawahi nahi dega aur court ke andar nahi jayega, agar to gaya toh, tere hath pair tod dunga aur tujhe jaan se maar dunga". Consequent to said threat, PW1 got terrified and called at number 100. Thereafter, police officials including HC Rajeev reached at the spot and PW1 requested him to check CCTV footage of relevant time, however, police officials did not check the same despite his several requests. Thereafter, after giving his written complaint to police officials on the same day of incident, he left the PS. At that time, when he was going towards Family Court from PS, near the Nullah (in between the Family Court and PS Saket), he met the accused along with Mukesh Chaturvedi, where the accused by forcefully stopping him, made State Vs. Ankush Chaturvedi FIR No. 549/2016 PS Saket Page 3 of 14 him talk to his father namely Dinesh Sharma, over his mobile phone. PW1/complainant further alleged that Dinesh Sharma, father of the accused also abused him with filthy language by saying "Police shikayat aur check ka mukadma wapas le le", upon his refusal, accused along with Mukesh Chaturvedi assaulted him and tried to get his signature on a blank paper. When PW1 refused to do the same, Mukesh Chaturvedi caught hold of his hair with both hands and accused Ankush slapped him on his cheeks. Thereafter, Mukesh kicked on his right hip and also threatened him by saying "Jo tere bas ki hai wo kar lena". PW1 deposed that thereafter, he rescued himself and went to PS Saket where he described the whole incident to police officials, who made fun of him after hearing this and commented "Tu koi District Collector hai, tujhe PSO de de". He deposed that the police officials told him that the said incident was captured in CCTV footage and they would call him for showing the same during investigation. After 10-15 days, he called HC Rajeev to inquire about his complaint, who asked him to meet police officials namely Jatin and Anurag to resolve his doubts. After one and half months, when he filed an application under RTI for getting information regarding his case, police officials did not give satisfactory replies. After one and half months of the reply of RTI application, he gave written complaint to concerned DCP, Commission of Police, ITO and also at PS Saket. When police officials did not act on his complaints, he filed an application u/s State Vs. Ankush Chaturvedi FIR No. 549/2016 PS Saket Page 4 of 14 156(3) CrPC before the court and the present case FIR was registered. He further deposed that he filed another complaint case against accused persons regarding above-mentioned incident and same was fixed for 17.11.2018. He correctly identified the accused Ankush shown to him. The witness was duly cross-examined.

7. PW2 SI Jatan Kumar, deposed that on 28.10.2015, he was posted at Police Post Saket Court Complex as Ct (DD writer). On that day, a person complained to him regarding the opposite party who was refraining him from entering the court room no. 300, thereafter, on senior official's direction, he sent Ct Anurag along with said complainant to court room no. 300. The IO recorded his statement u/s 161 CrPC regarding the same.

8. PW3 Vijay Nagar, deposed that on 28.10.2015, he went to Court no. 312, Saket Court for his personal work. While crossing Court room no. 300, he witnessed a dispute between one Virender Gupta and the accused, and said accused was preventing him from entering court no. 300 and threatened him to get him killed if he entered the said court. Thereafter, he gave his mobile number to the complainant and told him to call him if needed, as he knew the complainant being the client of Mr. Randhir Singh and Sh. Naresh Agarwal, the advocates under whom PW3 was working at that time and he left the spot. The witness was duly cross-examined.

9. PW4 ASI Rajeev Kumar, the IO (Investigating Officer), State Vs. Ankush Chaturvedi FIR No. 549/2016 PS Saket Page 5 of 14 deposed that on 28.10.2015, he was on emergency duty. On receipt of DD no. 27A, he along with Ct Dhirender went to place of incident, where he met PW1/complainant who received his written complaint. During inquiry, he was unable to find any evidence regarding said incident, subsequently, he filed DD No. 27A and the said complaint vide DD No. 53B. Thereafter, PW1 approached this court under Section 156(3) CrPC and on 08.08.2016, the Court gave directions to register FIR. IO endorsed said complaint and registered the FIR. During investigation, he recorded statement of Ct Anurag, and Ct Jatan Kumar. IO tried to find out eyewitnesses but could not find anyone. Thereafter, he prepared site plan at complainant's instance, checked the CCTV cameras but no camera was installed at the spot to cover the said incident. The IO called PW1 for recording his supplementary statement, who then disclosed about the eyewitness Vijay Nagar. Thereafter, IO made Vijay Nagar join the investigation and recorded his statement u/s 161 CrPC and after searching the accused, he handed over the notice to father of accused, who brought accused to PS. IO interrogated and arrested accused and after getting bail bonds, released him on bail. After completion of investigation, he filed charge-sheet in this court. The witness was duly cross-examined.

STATEMENT / DEFENCE OF THE ACCUSED

10. In his statement recorded under Section 313 of the Code, the accused denied the entire evidence against him. He stated that he is State Vs. Ankush Chaturvedi FIR No. 549/2016 PS Saket Page 6 of 14 innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. He also stated that he knew the complainant since last many years as his family is engaged in construction business and accused is in the business of electrical goods. There were trade transactions between his uncle and the complainant. When a dispute arose between them, the complainant approached the accused and his father to mediate and settle the matter which they refused. He deposed that on 28.10.2015, he was not in Saket Court Complex and he came to know about this case, when IO contacted him almost after four months after registration of FIR. Accused did not lead any evidence in his defence.

ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS

11. The record has been thoroughly and carefully perused. The respective submissions of Sh. Rajat Bansal, Ld. Assistant Public Prosecutor for State and Sh. Kunal Vashist, Ld. Counsel for the accused have been considered.

12. The accused has been charged under Section 341 and Section 506(II) of IPC. It is the case of the prosecution that on 28.10.2015 at about 2:00 p.m., the accused voluntarily obstructed the complainant from proceeding in any direction thereby committing an offence punishable under Section 341 of IPC and threatened to kill him with intent to cause him alarm thereby committing an offence punishable under Section 506 (Part II) of IPC.

13. Section 341 punishes wrongful confinement. The offence "wrongful confinement" has been defined in Section 340 of IPC as follows:

"Whoever wrongfully restrains any person in such a manner as to prevent that person from proceedings beyond certain circumscribing limits, is said "wrongfully to confine" that person".

14. Section 506 (Part II) of IPC punishes criminal intimidation where threat is to cause death or grievous hurt or to cause the destruction of any property by fire or to cause an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life. "Criminal intimidation" has been defined in Section 503 of IPC as follows:

"Whoever threatens another with any injury to his person, reputation or property, or to the person or reputation of any one in whom that person is interested, with intent to cause alarm to that person, or to cause that person to do any act which he is not legally bound to do, or to omit to do any act which that person is legally entitled to do, as the means of avoiding the execution of such threat, commits criminal intimidation. Explanation.--A threat to injure the reputation of any deceased person in whom the person threatened is interested, is within this section.

15. In Amulya Kumar Behera vs. Nabaghana Behera [1995 CriLJ 3559], the complainant alleged that the accused abused him in filthy language and if the witnesses had not intervened and saved him, the accused would have given him more injuries than a mere fist blow. The complainant admitted that he was not alarmed by the threat given to him by the accused. The Hon'ble High Court of Orissa observed that creating an alarm in the mind of the threatened person is an essential ingredient to attract 506 IPC and since this State Vs. Ankush Chaturvedi FIR No. 549/2016 PS Saket Page 8 of 14 important element was missing, it did not amount to criminal intimidation. In Surinder Suri vs. State of Haryana [Decision dated 09.05.1996 of the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in Criminal Misc. No. 20737-M of 1995], the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana HC observed that the gist of the offence under Section 503 IPC, is the effect which the threat is intended to have upon the mind of the person threatened. The threat must be one that can be put into execution by the person threatening. A mere vague allegation by the accused that he is going to take revenge by false complaints cannot amount to criminal intimidation. In Subramanian Swamy vs. C. Pushparaj [1998 (1) CTC 300], the complaint was filed on a speech delivered by the petitioner which the complainant found offensive and threatening under 506 IPC. The court observed that for an offence to amount to criminal intimidation one must look at to whom it was intended, whether the alarm was caused, what are the actual words employed. The mere mentioning of sections and putting a person to face the trial is nothing but the abuse of the process of the Court. The court held that mere outburst is not sufficient to hold that it would fall within the mischief of Sec. 506 of IPC.

16. With respect to Section 506 of IPC, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Manik Taneja and another vs. State of Karnataka [2015 7 SCC 423], observed:

"It is the intention of the accused that has to be considered in State Vs. Ankush Chaturvedi FIR No. 549/2016 PS Saket Page 9 of 14 deciding as to whether what he has stated comes within the meaning of "Criminal intimidation". The threat must be with intention to cause alarm to the complainant to cause that person to do or omit to do any work. Mere expression of any words without any intention to cause alarm would not be sufficient to bring in the application of this section. But material has to be placed on record to show that the intention is to cause alarm to the complainant."

17. It is the defence of the accused that the case has been filed in a vexatious manner to falsely implicate him. He has submitted that he knew the complainant since many years as there were trade transactions between his uncle and the complainant in which there were certain disputes for which the complainant's father and the complainant were requested to mediate which they declined. He has further submitted that he was not physically present in the Saket District Court Complex on the date of the alleged incident i.e. 28.10.2015.

18. In the considered opinion of this court, neither Section 341 of IPC nor Section 506 (Part II) of IPC has been proven beyond reasonable doubt by the prosecution. There are various infirmities and inconsistencies which fundamentally shatter the case of the complainant which are listed in detail below:

a) Firstly, the complainant in his cross-examination dated 07.10.2022 stated that the Ld. District and Sessions Judge (South) was on training on the date of the incident. However, to the contrary, the order dated 28.10.2015 is available on record which is duly signed by the Ld. District and Sessions Judge (South), wherein State Vs. Ankush Chaturvedi FIR No. 549/2016 PS Saket Page 10 of 14 presence of the complainant is duly noted thereby controverting the submissions of the complainant.

b) Secondly, HC Rajeev Kumar in DD No. 53B dated 28.10.2015 has duly noted down that on receipt of information, he went to the place of incidence wherein he received information from Ct. Anurag that on the request of the complainant, he accompanied the complainant to the court where no altercation happened between them in the court. It was further stated by Ct. Anurag that the complainant as well as the accused attended the court proceedings.

However, this is in stark contradiction to the averment of the complainant as in his cross-examination dated 07.10.2022, he deposed that he did not go inside the court after the incident and he directly went to the P.S.

c) Thirdly, the written complaint of the complainant is Ex. PW1/A. In his examination in chief, it is deposed that the written complaint was handed over in PS Saket after which he went to Family Courts. However, in his cross-examination, he has admitted that his complaint was not accepted by PS Saket at the first instance and he filed the same in the PS at around 5:30 p.m. Further, HC Rajeev Kumar in DD No. 53B dated 28.10.2015 has submitted that a written complaint was handed over at the spot by the complaint. Therefore, it appears that there were multiple complaints and the prosecution has not placed the same on record in a clear manner.

d) Fourthly, in his cross-examination, the complainant firstly State Vs. Ankush Chaturvedi FIR No. 549/2016 PS Saket Page 11 of 14 averred that accused Ankush had given him beatings. In the same breadth, he changed his version stating that Mukesh gave him beatings while the accused Ankush held his hair. However, the said statements do not appear related to the instant FIR. Further, in his examination in chief, complainant stated that he will produce the complaint filed by him with respect to the subsequent incident, he did not bring it and place it on record despite grant of opportunity. The complainant's deposition suffers from ambiguity and improvements which attribute malafide on the complainant.

e) Fifthly, with respect to the deposition of PW-3, it is pertinent to note that PW3 was introduced to the prosecution case by way of supplementary statement dated 25.01.2017. PW3 Vijay Nagar, he submitted that he was in Saket court for personal work and when he was passing through court no. 300, he witnessed the arguments between one Virender Gupta and the accused wherein the accused was preventing the complainant from entering into the court. He further deposed that he gave his mobile number to the complainant and asked him to call if needed any further help. The witness deposed that he knew the complainant as he was client of Mr. Randhir Singh and Mr. Naresh Agarwal, who are advocates of the complainant. However, PW3 did not identify the accused. Whilst PW3 deposed in his cross-examination that he has never worked as clerk of Adv. Randhir, in his statement recorded by the IO he has stated that he works as clerk of Adv. Randhir.

f) Sixthly, the complainant deposed that court staff tried to rescue him. However, neither the complainant has been able to provide details of said court staff neither the IO appears to have conducted an investigation in this regard by examining the witnesses. The veracity of the prosecution version is doubtful as there are no credible independent witnesses to the incident. PW4 ASI Rajeev Kumar has deposed that he could not find any eye witness to the incident which further casts aspersions on the prosecution version as it is inexplicable why court staff or other advocates did not vouch for the complainant's case.

g) Lastly, the complainant has admitted that he had failed a case under the NI Act against one Mukesh Chaturvedi who is a relative of the accused. It is also an admitted fact that there are various cases pending between the complainant and relatives of the accused. In the absence of eye witnesses corroborating the version of the complainant, it cannot be written off that the case may have been filed as the complainant has an axe to grind with the accused and his family members.

19. There is not even an iota of evidence in support of the averments of the complainant that he was restrained and intimidated. Further, it also is not evident from the file that alarm was caused to the complainant due to the intimidation by the accused. The evidence on record is botchy, unclear and lacks consistency. The cardinal rule in criminal law is that prosecution has State Vs. Ankush Chaturvedi FIR No. 549/2016 PS Saket Page 13 of 14 to prove their case beyond reasonable doubt and the benefit of the doubt has to be given to the accused. In Partap vs. State of Uttar Pradesh [AIR 1976 SC 966], the Hon'ble Supreme Court has dealt with the question of burden of proof and observed as under:

"The phrase "burden of proof" is not defined in the Act. In respect of criminal cases, it is an accepted principle of criminal jurisprudence that the burden is always on the prosecution and never shifts. This flows from the cardinal principle that the accused is presumed to be innocent unless proved guilty by the prosecution and the accused is entitled to the benefit of every reasonable doubt."

20. On the basis of the above facts and circumstances, it is clear that the prosecution has not been able to establish the charges levelled against the accused. Accordingly, the accused is acquitted of the offences punishable under Section 341/506 Part II of IPC.

21. Bail bond in compliance of Section 437A of the Code is directed to be furnished.

Dictated and announced in open Court on 07.07.2023.

                                                T.            PRIYADARSHINI
                                                PRIYADARSHINI
                                                              Date: 2023.07.08
                                                              14:47:28 +0530


                                            (T. Priyadarshini)
                                        ACMM/South District/South
                                          New Delhi/07.07.2023




State Vs. Ankush Chaturvedi       FIR No. 549/2016 PS Saket              Page 14 of 14