Delhi District Court
State vs Vishal Preenja on 30 November, 2024
IN THE COURT OF SH. AMAN KUMAR SHARMA, JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS-05, SOUTH DISTRICT, SAKET COURTS
COMPLEX, NEW DELHI
CNR No. DLST02-003877-2015
IN THE MATTER OF:
STATE Vs. VISHAL PREENJA
FIR No. 2386/2014
PS Mehrauli
JUDGMENT
A) Sl. No. of the case : CR No. 2036532/2016
B) The date of commission of offence : 21.11.2014
C) The name of the complainant : Sh. Gaurav Sharma, S/o Sh.
Rajesh Kumar Sharma, R/o H.
No. 21, Hari Nagar, Bhullar
Valley, Firozpur City.
D) The name and address of accused : Vishal Preenja, S/o Sh. Suresh
Chander, R/o H. No. 42, Urban
Estate, Phase-I, Jalandhar,
Punjab.
E) Offence complained of : Section 506-II IPC
F) The plea of accused : Not Guilty
G) Final Order : Acquittal
H) The date of such Order : 30.11.2024
DATE OF INSTITUTION : 05.06.2015
DATE OF FINAL ARGUMENTS : 20.11.2024
DATE OF JUDGMENT : 30.11.2024
FIR No.2036532/2016 State Vs. Vishal Preenja Page No. 1 of 14
PS Mehrauli
BRIEF FACTS
1. The present case has originated from the charge-sheet filed by the State against accused namely Vishal Preenja, S/o Sh. Suresh Chander. As per the charge- sheet, on 21.11.2014, accused called the complainant from a USA number and voluntarily threatened to kill the complainant, his wife and other family members in case the complainant did not withdraw the case initiated by him earlier. It has been alleged that the accused gave threats to cause death with the intent to cause alarm to the complainant Gaurav Sharma and thereby accused has committed offence punishable u/s 506-II IPC.
2. On the basis of the charge-sheet, the Court took cognizance of the offence on 26.09.2015. The accused was supplied with the copy of chargesheet and the documents in compliance of Section 207 CrPC on 26.09.2015 when he had entered appearance in court. Court framed the charge against the accused for offence punishable under Section 506-II IPC. Charge was read over and explained to him to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
PROSECUTION EVIDENCE
3. For the purpose of prosecution evidence in the matter, the following witnesses were examined by the State:
(i) PW-1 Sh. Gaurav Sharma;
(ii) PW-2 Sh. Ajay Kumar;
(iii) PW-3 SI Gopal Singh; and
(iv) PW-4 Retd. SI Satish Kumar;
4. PW-1 Sh. Gaurav Sharma deposed that on 06.12.2013, his wife had lodged a FIR No.2036532/2016 State Vs. Vishal Preenja Page No. 2 of 14 PS Mehrauli complaint against the accused and pursuant to abovesaid complaint, FIR bearing No. 1024/2013 PS Mehrauli was lodged. As per his knowledge, the accused had already been convicted in that case in the year 2018. He deposed that on 21.11.2014 at about 05.30 AM when he was sleeping at his house i.e B-163, 2nd Floor, Freedom Fighter Enclave, IGNOU Road, Delhi, he got a call in his mobile no. 9871116590 from US No. +13053710000 by the accused. He further deposed that accused had told him by stating 'Kya tum FIR No. 1024 Vapis Loge Ya Nahi' upon which PW Sh. Gaurav Sharma refused to do the same. Accused further told him by stating 'Mai Aakri Baar Bole Raha Hu Ki tum Yeh case vapis loge Yaha Nahi' (sic.). He further refused to do the same and told that the case is sub-judice and the concerned court will decide the case.
5. PW-1 Sh. Gaurav Sharma further deposed that the accused started abusing his wife by uttering words. He also deposed that the accused started threatening him by uttering words 'Agar tune case vapis nahi liya to tume goli mar dunga', uskae baad teri wife ko bhi goli maar dunga yaa us per acid faike dunga', Mae tumare father jo Firoj Pur me rahate hae unko bhi maar dunga'. PW-1 Sh. Gaurav Sharma deposed that he was afraid and asked him why the accused wanted to cause injury to him and his family. Accused replied that 'Tabhi to kah raha hoo ke case vapis le lo'. PW Sh. Gaurav Sharma further deposed that the accused within 5 seconds further called him on his above said mobile number from his abovesaid number from USA and told him that nobody can do anything and he can do anything while sitting in USA and nobody can stop him.
6. PW-1 further deposed that the accused further told him that 'Aab Mae FIR No.2036532/2016 State Vs. Vishal Preenja Page No. 3 of 14 PS Mehrauli Internet per tumari wife ke bare me sabko batauga". On the same day, PW Sh. Gaurav Kumar Sharma lodged a complaint with PS Mehrauli which is Ex. PW-1/B. He further deposed that on 20.12.2014, he had submitted some documents to police which were seized by police official vide seizure memo which is Ex. PW-1/C and the documents are marked as Mark 'X' (Colly) (five pages). PW1 had correctly identified the accused in the court.
7. When PW-1 Sh. Gaurav Kumar Sharma was cross-examined by Ld. defence counsel, he deposed that he had not annexed the complaint lodged by his wife on 06.12.2013 along-with the present complaint. PW1 denied the suggestion that he had deliberately not annexed the complaint dt. 06.12.2013 as in that complaint, his wife had stated the accused to be in depression and a psycho. PW1 denied the suggestion that he had messaged abusively in vulgar language to accused's sister as well as mother prior to this complaint. He further denied the suggestion that he threatened the accused by saying that his relative is in police department and he will falsely implicate the accused and put the accused behind the bar. PW-1 deposed as correct that he had not mentioned in his complaint the abusive words hurled by the accused to him which is Ex. PW-1/A.
8. PW-1 Sh. Gaurav Kumar, in his cross-examination, voluntarily deposed that he had mentioned in the complaint that the accused had abused, used vulgar language to him and his wife. Witness voluntarily deposed as correct that the documents Mark X (colly) do not bear his mobile number. He voluntarily deposed that the mobile number does not reflect in the screenshot. He deposed as correct that he had not given a certificate u/s 65 B of Indian Evidence Act pertaining to the FIR No.2036532/2016 State Vs. Vishal Preenja Page No. 4 of 14 PS Mehrauli above screen shots and other documents. He further denied the suggestion that the said screenshots do not pertain to his mobile. He further deposed as correct that he had not mentioned in his complaint dt. 21.11.2014 wherein the accused had stated in examination in chief that "agar tune case wapis nahi liya toh goli mar dunga; teri wife ko bhi goli mar dunga; ya acid faik dunga". He voluntarily deposed that he had mentioned that accused had threatened to kill him, his wife, and his family in his complaint.
9. PW-1 Sh. Gaurav Kumar Sharma denied the suggestion that no such threats were hurled by the accused to him as well as to his wife and that is why, he had not mentioned it in his complaint. He voluntarily deposed that he had mentioned in his complainant that the accused had threatened him to kill him and his family. He further deposed as correct that he had filed complaint against the accused in Firozpur regarding Facebook messages (which came to him and his wife in the year 2015). The same is FIR no. 237/2015 PS Firozpur City, Punjab. He further deposed as correct that Firozpur Police had said that they were able to trace the messages. He further deposed that he was not aware about the FSL report. Witness denied the suggestion that the FSL report was in negative.
10. PW1 Sh. Gaurav Kumar, in his cross examination, further denied the suggestion that he had not initiated any proceedings before High Court of Punjab and Haryana in above said FSL report as he was not aware about the said report. He further deposed as correct that he had not mentioned in his complaint to police that accused had again called him after 5 seconds. Witness further denied the suggestion that he had messaged vulgarly against the mother and sister of the accused. He FIR No.2036532/2016 State Vs. Vishal Preenja Page No. 5 of 14 PS Mehrauli further denied the suggestion that he had filed similar complaints in Punjab as well as in New Delhi which are false. Witness again denied the suggestion that the accused never hurled or messaged him or his wife abusively and vulgarly.
11. PW-2 Sh. Ajay Kumar deposed that he had brought the certified copy of call detail record, customer application form of mobile no. 9871116590 from the period between 10.10.2014 and 21.11.2014 along with a certificate u/s 65B of Indian Evidence Act of mobile no 9871116590 from the period between 10.10.2014 and 21.11.2014. The above-mentioned mobile number belongs to Gaurav Sharma. The call detail record is Ex.PW1/A and CAF is Ex.PW1/B. The certificate u/s 65B of Indian Evidence Act is Ex.PW1/C. The authority letter dt. 09.12.2021 is Ex. PW- 1/D (OSR).
12. When PW2 was cross-examined by Ld. defence counsel, he deposed as correct that he had signed the certificate u/s 65B of Indian Evidence Act that certified the CDR pertaining to mobile no. 9871116590. He stated that he had been working with Airtel since 2007 as a Nodal Officer. The call detail records have been retrieved from his computer system, which is located in his office at Okhla, Phase-III. He further deposed that he was not aware if any fake calls can be a part of record produced. He deposed that the said call detail records are system generated. He further denied the suggestion that there can be a mistake or error while the details of the calls / fake calls in the records.
13. PW-3 SI Gopal Singh deposed that on 21.11.2014, DO had informed him that further investigation of the present case was marked to him directly by the SHO. He had received the rukka as well as copy of FIR and further investigation of the FIR No.2036532/2016 State Vs. Vishal Preenja Page No. 6 of 14 PS Mehrauli case was taken up by him. During further investigation, he moved an application for the recording of statement of complainant's wife namely Neha u/s 164 Cr.P.C. Thereafter, on 06.01.2015, statement of complainant's wife Neha u/s 164 Cr.P.C were recorded. During the investigation, accused moved an application for anticipatory bail. Thereafter, the accused was formally arrested and was released on bail as the offences were bailable in nature. Arrest memo of the accused is Ex.PW3/A. Bail bonds and personal bonds of the accused is Ex.PW3/B. He further deposed that the complainant had given five pages of screenshots from Facebook and mobile call log.
14. PW-3 SI Gopal further deposed that the said pages containing screen shots were seized by him. The seizure memo is Ex PW1/C. The photocopy of the said five pages of Facebook and call log are Mark X (colly). During investigation, he had collected CDR along-with certificate u/s 65B of Indian Evidence Act and CAF of mobile number of the complainant. He had recorded supplementary statement of complainant u/s 161 Cr.P.C. Thereafter, he filed the charge-sheet in the present matter. The charge-sheet is Ex.PW3/C.
15. When PW-3 SI Gopal was cross examined by Ld. defence counsel, he deposed as correct that the residential address of the complainant falls under the jurisdiction of PS Mehrauli and not in the jurisdiction of PS Neb Sarai. He further deposed that he was not aware whether the complainant came himself to register the complaint. He deposed that thereafter; it came to his notice that the complaint was typed on which SHO PS Mehrauli had made the endorsement u/s 506/509 IPC and further investigation was marked to him.
FIR No.2036532/2016 State Vs. Vishal Preenja Page No. 7 of 14 PS Mehrauli
16. PW4 Retd. SI Satish Kumar deposed that on 21.11.2014, he was posted as DO at PS Mehrauli. On that day, his duty hours were from morning 08:00 AM to 04:00 PM. On that day, SHO, PS Mehrauli had given him the rukka in the present matter. Thereafter, he registered the FIR in the present matter and the investigation was marked in the name of SI Gopal Singh by SHO, PS Mehrauli. The rukka is Ex.PW4/A. He had brought original FIR register containing FIR No. 2386 dt. 21.11.2014. The FIR is Ex.PW4/B (OSR). Cross-examination of PW-4 was recorded as nil despite of opportunity given to Ld. defence counsel.
STATEMENT OF ACCUSED & FINAL ARGUMENTS
17. Upon conclusion of prosecution evidence, statement of accused Vishal Preenja under Section 313 Cr.P.C. read with Section 281 Cr.P.C. was recorded in which all incriminating material was put to him, to which he pleaded innocence and claimed to have been falsely implicated. Accused had stated that on 21.11.2014, he made a call to the complainant to discuss legal formalities. He stated that he had not threatened the complainant or any of his family members. It was the complainant who started abusing him during his call. His call lasted for only 2-3 minutes. Accused chose not to lead defence evidence.
18. Final arguments were heard at length from Ld. counsel for accused and Ld. APP for the State. Ld. Counsel for the accused has argued that the case of the prosecution is highly improbable as the accused was present in the United States of America at the time of offence. It has been stated that only one phone call was made by the accused and that too was for the purpose of discussing the closure of pending cases between the parties. It has been argued that the liability u/s 506 IPC FIR No.2036532/2016 State Vs. Vishal Preenja Page No. 8 of 14 PS Mehrauli has not been attracted as there was no alarm caused to the complainant, neither was there any apprehension of harm. It is lastly argued that the prosecution could not substantiate its case as the wife of the complainant Ms. Neha has not been examined before the court. It is hence prayed that the accused be acquitted.
19. On the other hand, Ld. APP for the State has argued that the present case is a fit case for conviction. She has submitted before the court that the testimony of PW1 / complainant is coherent and unrebutted. She has also relied upon the statement of wife of the complainant Ms. Neha that has been recorded u/s 164 CrPC to state that version of the complainant and his wife remains the same. Ld. APP has further argued that convincing evidence is available on record against the accused as the Call Details Records have also been produced by Nodal Officer from Airtel. It is lastly argued that testimonies of PWs are consistent. It is thus prayed by Ld. APP that the accused be convicted of the offence with which he has been charged.
COURT OBSERVATION
20. The offence with which the accused has been charged is the offence u/s 506-II of IPC i.e. the offence of 'Criminal Intimidation'. It has been alleged that the accused called the complainant from a USA number and criminally intimidated him by threatening to kill him, his wife and other family members if the complainant does not withdraw the cases that were filed by him against the accused. Section 503 IPC defines the offence of 'Criminal Intimidation' and Section 506 IPC provides the punishment for the offence in the following manner-
503. Criminal intimidation.--Whoever threatens another with FIR No.2036532/2016 State Vs. Vishal Preenja Page No. 9 of 14 PS Mehrauli 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 intim- idation.
Explanation. --A threat to injure the reputation of any deceased person in whom the person threatened is interested, is within this section.
506. Punishment for criminal intimidation. --Whoever commits, the offence of criminal intimidation shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.
If threat be to cause death or grievous hurt, etc.--And if the threat be 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 1[imprisonment for life], or with imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven years, or to impute, unchastity to a woman, shall be punished with imprison- ment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, or with fine, or with both.
21. Upon considering the bare provisions of IPC, it is also pertinent to give due regard to the judicial pronouncements covering the offence in question. In the judgment rendered in 'Dr. Subramanian Swamy v. C. Pushpraj , 1988', the Hon. Madras High Court has delineated the essential ingredients of 'criminal intimidation' in the following manner-
"Part II of Sec. 506, IPC is attracted if the criminal intimidation includes threat to cause death or grievous hurt. Mere outburst is not sufficient to hold that it would fall within the mischief of Sec. 506, IPC. In the instant case, the averment in the complaint and the statements in the depositions, if taken together, there are no allegations in the whole complaint that the petitioner ever made any attempt or did any act in pursuance of his alleged expression. So also, the actual words used or supposed to have been used by the petitioner is not stated either in the complaint FIR No.2036532/2016 State Vs. Vishal Preenja Page No. 10 of 14 PS Mehrauli or in the depositions. Regarding criminal intimidation to whom it was intended, whether alarm was caused, it so, what are the actual words employed are not stated either in the complaint or in the depositions. In the absence of these averments touching the ingredients, mere mentioning of sections and putting a person to face the trial is nothing but the abuse of the process of the Court." (emphasis supplied) Thus, causing of an alarm is also an essential ingredient in constituting an offence of criminal intimidation and the same must be seen in the light of the actual words that are employed. Such words must be stated by the complainant in the complaint or in the depositions. A mere use of words or a mere threat would not constitute an offence under the purview of Section 506 IPC and the intention of the accused along with consequence of criminal intimidation by way of alarm must also be looked into. The aforesaid view has been supported by judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in "Kanshi Ram v. State", reported in 2000 (86) DLT 609.
22. The genesis of this case was the written complaint filed by the complainant before SHO PS Mehrauli dt. 21.11.2014 which is Ex. PW-1/B. Upon perusal of the original complaint, it can be noted that the complainant has clearly and unequivocally mentioned about receipt of a call from the USA number of the accused i.e. +13053710000 on 21.11.2014. The complainant has stated that the accused said many bad things about the complainant's wife and asked him to withdraw the case. He further threatened the complainant by stating that if the complainant does not withdraw the case, the accused would kill the complainant, his wife and his parents in Firozpur. He stated that he can do anything while sitting at USA and nobody can stop him. He also threatened the complainant by stating that he shall destroy the complainant's family and used the internet to hurt their FIR No.2036532/2016 State Vs. Vishal Preenja Page No. 11 of 14 PS Mehrauli dignity.
23. When the complainant was summoned before the court as a witness / PW1, he reiterated the version provided in the complaint by deposing in the following manner: -
"On 21.11.2014 at about 5.30 AM when I was sleeping at my house i.e. B-163, 2nd Floor, Freedom Fighter Enclave, Ignoo Road, Delhi, I got a call in my mobile No. 9871116590 from US No. +13053710000 by accused Vishal. Accused told me that Kya tum FIR No. 1024 Vapis Loge Ya Nahi. I refused to do the same. Accused further told me tha 'Mai Aakri Baar Bole Raha Hu Ki tum Yeh case vapis loge Yaha Nahi'. I further refused to do the same and told that the case is sub- judice and the concerned court will decide the case. Thereafter, accused started abusing my wife by uttering words.
At this stage, witness stated that he is not comfortable to depose the abusing words and he can write the same in a paper. Plain paper is given to the witness in which witness write down. The said paper is taken on record and the same is now Ex. PW-1/A. Accused started threatening me by uttering words 'Agar tune case vapis nahi liya to tume goli mar dunga', uskae baad teri wife ko bhi goli maar dunga yaa us per acid faike dunga', Mae tumare father jo Firoz Pur me rahate hae unko bhi maar dunga'.
I was afraid and asked him why you want to cause injury to me and my family. Accused replied 'tabhi to kah raha hoo ke case vapis le lo'. Accused within 5 second further called me in my above said mobile number from his abovesaid number form USA and told me that nobody can do anything, and he can anything while sitting in USA and nobody can stop him. He further told me that 'Aab Mae Internet per tumari wife ke bare me sabko bataunga'.
On same day I lodged complaint with PS Mehrauli which is now Ex. PW-1/B which bearing my signature at point A......."
24. Hence, the actual words used by the accused only find mention in the deposition dated 12.12.2019 and appears to be a material improvement in the FIR No.2036532/2016 State Vs. Vishal Preenja Page No. 12 of 14 PS Mehrauli version stated in the complaint. The accused, admittedly, had made the telephonic call to the complainant while he was residing at USA. It is thus, discernible that there was no immediate alarm to put the complainant in fear for his life. Moreover, it is also not the case of the complainant that the accused had in fact followed up with more calls in furtherance of the two calls made on 21.11.2014. The accused had, thus, also not made any attempt or did any act in pursuance of his alleged expression. Most importantly, no call detail recording has been proved by the prosecution to substantiate the allegations made in the complaint. There is admittedly history of previous litigations between the parties, so possibility of implicating the accused in furtherance of the same cannot be ruled out. It is also pertinent to observe that Ms. Neha Sharma has also not deposed before the court during trial in respect of her statement recorded under section 164 CrPC despite grant of sufficient opportunity to the prosecution in this regard. Consequently, statement of Ms. Neha Sharma recorded under Section 164 CrPC cannot be read in evidence. Accordingly, the ingredients constituting the offence of criminal intimidation is not fulfilled and the culpability under Section 506 (Part II) IPC is not made out.
25. It is cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence that an accused is presumed to be innocent unless the contrary is proved. The burden lies on the prosecution to prove the guilt of accused "beyond reasonable doubt". The prosecution is under a legal obligation to prove each and every ingredient of offence beyond any doubt, unless otherwise so provided by any statute. This general burden never shifts, it always rests on the prosecution.
FIR No.2036532/2016 State Vs. Vishal Preenja Page No. 13 of 14 PS Mehrauli
26. In view of the above discussion, the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the guilt of accused persons, the benefit of which accrues in his favour. Accused namely, Sh. Vishal Preenja is accordingly acquitted for the offence under Section 506-II IPC.
27. Accused is directed to furnish necessary bail bonds under Section 437A CrPC.
Announced in Open Court (AMAN KUMAR SHARMA) on 30.11.2024 JMFC-05, South District/30.11.2024
Certified that this judgment contains 14 pages and bears my signatures at each page.
(AMAN KUMAR SHARMA) JMFC-05, South District/30.11.2024 FIR No.2036532/2016 State Vs. Vishal Preenja Page No. 14 of 14 PS Mehrauli