Delhi District Court
Fir No. 104/2014 State vs . Dilip Chawla 1 Of 17 on 15 October, 2018
Ms. Sheetal Chaudhary Pradhan, Metropolitan Magistrate
(Mahila court (SouthEast), Saket Courts, New Delhi.
FIR No. 104/2014
PS: Greater Kailash
U/s : 354D/506/509 IPC
State v. Dilip Chawla
JUDGMENT
Date of institution : 25.08.2014
Cr.C No. : 90994/2016
Name of the complainant : As per chargesheet.
Name & address of the accused : Dilip Chawla
persons S/o Sh. Probhash Chawla
R/o H.No.507B,
Beverly ParkI, Mehrauli,
Gurgaon road, Gurgaon,
Haryana.
Offence Complained of : U/s 354D/506/509 IPC
Offence Charged of : U/s 354D/506/509 IPC
Plea of the accused persons : Pleaded not guilty.
Final Order : Acquitted
Date of arguments : 12.10.2018
Date of announcing of order : 15.10.2018
FIR No. 104/2014 State Vs. Dilip Chawla 1 of 17
BRIEF FACTS:
1. Brief facts of the case which are stated by the complainant in her complaint are that the accused had committed offence with the intention to outrage her modesty and had extended threats to her life and reputation. Accused Dilip Chawla was known to the complainant since her school days and had been her friend. On 16.12.2013, accused wrote an email to the friend of complainant namely Sumedh Bharadwaj wherein he used unparliamentary language towards the complainant to defame her reputation. The same email was forwared to her by her aforesaid friend Sumedh Bharadwaj on 20.12.2013. Further, accused had been posting abusive and derogatory remarks about the complainant on social media like facebook. Further, accused had written another email to her common friend namely Sumedh Bharadwaj on 27.12.2013 again containing derogatory and defamatory words towards the complainant and had threatened the complainant in the email to bring disrepute to her and the aforesaid email was forwarded to her by Sh. Sumedh Bharadwaj. It has also been stated by the complainant that the accused had been calling her on her mobile number at odd hours and sending her messages which were vulgar and abusive in nature. On 09.03.2014, complainant received more than 20 messages from the accused for which she lodged a complaint at helpline No.1091 and the IO was entrusted to investigate the same. Further, the accused had been stalking the FIR No. 104/2014 State Vs. Dilip Chawla 2 of 17 complainant by staying opposite her house in a hotel named Grand Vikalp situated at C48A, G.K.I, New Delhi.
2. Pursuant to this complaint dated 11.03.2014 against the accused, FIR was registered on 12.03.2014 and the matter was investigated. Charge sheet was filed on 25.08.2014. The Court took cognizance of offence and summoned the accused. Charge was framed against accused vide order dated 06.06.2017 for the offence punishable U/s 354D/506/509 IPC. Accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial and accordingly, prosecution evidence was lead.
3. In order to prove its case, prosecution has examined four (04) witnesses during trial.
PW1 complainant/victim deposed that accused Dilip Chawla had been her friend since her school days. Accused had sent a mail on 16.12.2013, copy of the same was mark A1 and the similar copy of the said mail was also sent to his lawyer and his friend Sumedh Bharadwaj in which he used unparliamentary language and abused her and maligned her reputation. On 27.12.2013, she received a mail from Sumedh Bharadwaj who had received mail from Dilip Chawla, accused had threatened to get her picked up by the National Security Guards and ensure that she was penniless and again using unparliamentary language. The copy of the mail dated 27.12.2013 was mark A2. In January, FIR No. 104/2014 State Vs. Dilip Chawla 3 of 17 2014 he went on the social media calling her all sorts of names and linking her with various known personalities using abusive language and all details of screen shots of her facebook were retrieved into one compact disc (CD) and the same was given to the police. Accused Dilip Chawla wrote the first email to Sumedh Bhardwaj about her on 16.12.2013 in which he defamed her and the same mail was forwarded to her by Sumedh Bhardwaj on 20.12.2013. Then he wrote another mail on 27.12.2013 in which he threatened to get her picked up by the NSD Commando and he called her a terrorist and used unparliamentary language, the said mail was also sent to Sumedh Bhardwaj, who further sent and forwarded to her. In the month of January, 2014 accused Dilip Chawla started writing against her on facebook in which he used very dirty and unparliamentary language for defaming her and for mentally harassing her. In January, 2014, accused further went to defame her by further posting filthy language and defaming her and her family through his facebook post visible to all. From 1st March to 9th March, 2014 he continuously sent her dirty text messages at odd hours. During that period accused had made several calls to her which she ignored to pick up the same and at one instance her friends namely Kartik picked up the phone and clearly told him that PW1 was not interested to talk with him but he did not stop to call her through his mobile number. She did not remember the said mobile number however she had FIR No. 104/2014 State Vs. Dilip Chawla 4 of 17 mentioned the same in her complaint. After that accussed started stalking her at Gymkhana club and he took a room right opposite her house in Grand Vikalp Guest house and would stand in front of her house waiting to trouble her. After the month of March, 2014 at one occasion while she was in Gymkhana situated at Safdarjung Road, accused Dilip Chawla insulted her and called her a tramp in presence of her fellow members for which she made a complaint to President of the Gymkhana and after which the President of Gymkhana disallowed him and put a life time ban to enter the Gymkhana. She had made the complaint on Women Help Line Number as accused had threatened to get her pick up by the National Security Guard by telling that she was a terrorist. She had given her complaint to SHO PS GKI against the accused which was Ex.PW1/A. Thereafter, one Compact Disk of Moserbaer attached with the file was shown to the witness and witness correctly identified the same stating that same was given by her to the IO. The same was exhibited as Ex. P1. The photocopy of the screen shot of the facebook was mark A3 (colly 1 to 3). The statement of the witness recorded U/sec 164 CrPC was Ex. PW1/B. During crossexamination PW1 deposed that she did not know where accused was residing in Jangpura till he invited her and her friends for dinner at his residence at Jangpura, in the year 2013. She alongwith her friends visited the residence of accused FIR No. 104/2014 State Vs. Dilip Chawla 5 of 17 upon his invitation to her and her friends twice or thrice. It was correct that the parties used to go on for late in the night and dinner was served by 12.00 in the night and even drinks were offered. It was wrong to suggest that accused accompanied her to gymkhana club. It was wrong to suggest that the parties which were organised at the house of the accused, the catering for the same was done by her friend Sh. Atamjeet Singh. It was wrong to suggest that she had acquaintance and was meeting the accused since her school time. She met the accused first time at a school function when she was in 12th standard. It was wrong to suggest that accused used to accompany her to Delhi whenever she visited from her school from Dehradun. It was correct that she gave a legal notice to accused through her lawyer on 28.04.2014. Thereafter, the witness was shown the photocopy of the legal notice which was correctly identified by the witness and the same was Ex.PW1/D1. It was correct that she had demanded Rs.2 crores in the aforesaid legal notice. She did not know if accused had ever undergone any surgery of brain because of which, he was subsequently unwell and mentally unstable. It was wrong to suggest that she used to ask about the health of the accused often from his mother. It was wrong to suggest that upon her inquiring about the health of the accused from his mother, she requested his mother to take care of him. It was correct that Sh. Sumedh was common friend of accused and herself. It was wrong to FIR No. 104/2014 State Vs. Dilip Chawla 6 of 17 suggest that she visited the accused in the hospital when he was unwell alongwith Sh. Sumedh. It was wrong to suggest that accused was not in a condition to distinguish between right and wrong at that time. She did not know if in the year 2013, due to the aforesaid condition accused was unemployed. She never asked accused if he was employed whenever she visited him for parties at his residence. She did not know if the father of accused had sold off any of his property in the year 2013 and she did not know if accused used to take money from his father for organising such parties or get together. It was wrong to suggest that she used to keep the mobile phone of accused with her since she was close to him. She did not know if on 12.03.2014, accused had lost control on his mind due to which the aforesaid hotel administration had called his family. She had drafted her complaint Ex.PW1/A. It was correct that she had stated in her complaint that she wanted the accused to be arrested. It was wrong to suggest that she was unemployed in the year 2013. Thereafter, one CD already exhibited as Ex.P1 was played in the court and it was observed by the court that the CD Ex.P1 was not responding and no visual was displayed and was not running.
It was correct that one Sh. Khoob Chand who lives in Defence Colony was the senior person who is also a member at gymkhana club. It was wrong to suggest that she used to be FIR No. 104/2014 State Vs. Dilip Chawla 7 of 17 picked by accused in the midnight to attend the parties of Sh. Khoob Chand.
PW2 Dr. Kushal Jain deposed that on 31.05.2014, he had received a notice from IO of the present case addressing to the CMO/1/C VIMHANS hospital, Nehru Nagar, New Delhi regarding opinion to examine accused Dilip Chawla. He had given reply on the said notice which was Ex.PW2/A "that patient is suffering from schizophrenia and is under treatment and mentally unfit for any examination/interrogation by the legal personnel". Accused Dilip Chawla was voluntarily admitted in VIMHANS hospital in emergency dt. 12.03.2014 and he was discharged on 26.07.2014. On 18.03.2014, he had issued a certificate pertaining to accused Dilip Chawla which was Ex.PW2/B. During crossexamination PW2 deposed that it is correct that the patient suffering from schizophrenia can not differentiate between right and wrong in his behaviour during his illness. It was correct that this disease is incurable and the illness is life long. Thereafter, witness was shown medical certificate issued by him and witness stated that the said certificate dt. 28.07.2016 pertaining to Mr. Dilip Chawla was also issued by him which was Ex.PW2/D1.
PW3 SI Pawan Kumar deposed that on 12.03.2014, he was posted as SI at PS G.KI. On that day, he received complaint FIR No. 104/2014 State Vs. Dilip Chawla 8 of 17 Ex.PW1/A from concerned Duty Officer at PS. Complainant was also present at PS. After seeing the complaint, he called the complainant for clearing the complaints of the complainant and after satisfying with her regarding the complaints, he prepared a rukka, which was Ex.PW3/A and got it registered as FIR. After registration of FIR, original rukka and copy of FIR handed over to him by concerned DO as further investigation of present case was marked to him. Annexture of the complaint mark A1 to A2 were also attached with the file. During the course of investigation, statement u/s 164 CrPC of the complainant got recorded. He had given notice u/s 91 CrPC to concerned Nodal officer pertaining to certified copy of customer application form and CDR of mobile numbers of complainant with requisite certificate u/s 65B of the Indian Evidence Act vide notice Ex. PW3/B and collected the customer application form, CDR and certificate u/s 65B of Indian Evidence Act of the same and attached with the file. He had given notice u/s 91 CrPC to concerned Nodal officer of Unitech Wireless Pvt. Ltd. pertaining to certified copy of customer application form and CDR of alleged mobile numbers of accused with requisite certificate u/s 65 B of the Indian Evidence Act vide notice Ex.PW3/C and in reply of Unitech Wireless Pvt. Ltd., it was revealed that alleged mobile no. 9643355421 did not belong to Unitech Wirless Pvt. Ltd. Thereafter, he further gave notice u/s 91 CrPC to Airtel FIR No. 104/2014 State Vs. Dilip Chawla 9 of 17 Nodal Officer pertaining to another alleged mobile number of accused i.e 9910115263 for certified copy of customer application form and CDR of the said mobile number of accused with requisite certificate u/s 65 B of the Indian Evidence Act vide notice Ex.PW3/D and collected the customer application form, CDR and certificate u/s 65B of Indian Evidence Act of the same and attached with the file. During the course of investigation, he examined witness Sumedh Bhardwaj who provided hard copy of email dt. 16.12.2013 and 27.12.2013 which was alleged to be sent by accused to him regarding the defamatory/obscene statement pertaining to complainant which was taken into possession which was Mark X1 and X2 and attached with the file. He recorded statement u/s 161 CrPC of Sumedh Bhardwaj. Complainant had given one CD alleged to be containing snapshot of alleged facebook chat send to having defamatory and obscene message regarding her. He had given notice u/s 91 CrPC to General Manager of Grand Viklap Hospitality Hotel requiring stay details of accused Dilip Chawla with requisite register and his identity proof furnished by him during his stay in the hotel vide memo Ex.PW3/E and in reply of aforesaid notice, the concerned General Manager provided attested copy of ID proof of accused Dilip Chawla, marked as Mark Y1. Stay register pertaining to accused Dilip Chawla at serial no.10796 showing date of entry in hotel as 08.03.2014 and date of departure as FIR No. 104/2014 State Vs. Dilip Chawla 10 of 17 12.03.2014 were marked as Mark Y2 with forwarding letter already exhibited as Ex.A4. During the course of investigation, he also collected report regarding the state of mind of accused from the concerned doctor of VIMHANS hospital for obtaining opinion of the concerned doctor as to whether accused Dilip Chawla who was revealed to be admitted in the hospital, was fit for examination or not on two different dates on 21.05.2014 and 23.06.2014 vide letter Ex.PW2/A and Ex.PW3/F in which accused was opined unfit for any examination or interrogation by concerned doctor. He recorded statement of witnesses and after completion of investigation, challan was prepared and filed before this Court.
During crossexamination PW3 deposed that it was correct that he did not prepare the seizure memo for the documents which he collected from the Nodal Officer and General Manager of the hotel. It was wrong to suggest that he had not collected any hard copy of emails from Sumedh Bhardwaj due to which he did not prepare any seizure memo for the same. It was wrong to suggest that the documents collected from Hotel Grand Viklap were false and fabricated.
PW4 Rajender deposed that he was working at hotel Vikalp, G.KI for past six years. The original register of the aforesaid hotel Grand Vikalp for the period between 08.03.2014 FIR No. 104/2014 State Vs. Dilip Chawla 11 of 17 to 12.03.2014 and the same was Ex.PW4A. His authority letter was Ex.PW4/B. During crossexamination PW4 deposed that it was correct that the entries in the register were not in his handwriting. It was correct that there were advance bookings in their hotel and the entry in the register was only done upon the arrival of the guest. They do not maintain any record in respect to any guest and his number of entry or exit in the hotel during his stay. It was wrong to suggest that the aforesaid entry of Ex.PW4/A was done by one lady and not by guest Dilip Chawla at Sl. No.796. The payment for this room No.007 was received by way of cash as well as by card. He did not know the name of the person whose card was used however, the card number was having last four digits as 6637 and the payment from the card was for Rs.8407/ dated 12.03.2014.
4. Statement of accused was recorded u/s 294 CrPC and accused admitted the FIR, the same was Ex.P1, CAF form for mobile No.9810212885 was Ex.A3, reply of notice u/s 91 CrPC of General Manager, Grand Vikalp hospitality was Ex.A4 and rukka was Ex.A2.
5. Thereafter, prosecution evidence was closed and statement of accused was recorded U/s 313 Cr. P.C wherein all incriminating FIR No. 104/2014 State Vs. Dilip Chawla 12 of 17 evidence was put to accused. Accused denied the allegations of prosecution as false and pleaded false implication.
6. Accused did not examine any witness in his defence.
7. Ld. APP for the state has argued that in the present matter all the witnesses have corroborated the story of the prosecution and there is no contradiction in the testimony of the witnesses and therefore accused is liable to be convicted for the offences charged.
8. However, on the other hand, Ld. Counsel for accused has argued that the accused have been falsely implicated by the complainant and it is an admitted fact that the complainant and the accused were known to each other since school days and it is also admitted that complainant and the accused were having good relations and were friends to each other soon before filing of the present complaint. Further, the present complaint was filed by the complainant after having premediated plan with the intention to extort money from the accused. Therefore, the same are false as the allegations are an after thought. It is further argued that there is no corroboration in the testimony of the witnesses and the statement of the complainant. It is also argued that the complaint is vague and the allegations are fanciful and do not inspire confidence and therefore, accused is liable to be acquitted.
FIR No. 104/2014 State Vs. Dilip Chawla 13 of 17 Further despite the fact that the complainant came to know regarding the factum of abusive and filthy language used against her through her common friend namely Sumedh Bharadwaj, the said witness did not appear before the court and therefore, the allegations of the complainant are false in nature and have not been corroborated and therefore, accused is liable to be acquitted.
Court Observation:
9. After having carefully perused the evidence on record and considered the rival contentions of the state as well as defence counsel, this court has come to the following conclusion:
In the present matter, prosecution examined as many as four witnesses among which PW1 was the complainant and all remaining witnesses examined by the prosecution were formal in nature. In the present matter, the star witness of the prosecution is the complainant, who is also the victim in the present matter. However, if we carefully peruse her complaint Ex.PW1/A, her statement recorded u/s 164 Cr.PC and her testimony before the court, there are glaring contradictions and no corroboration. Further, there is vast improvement in the testimony of the complainant and the complainant has failed to even narrate the manner in which the incident occurred since she herself has stated that the alleged acts of indecent use of language towards the complainant were narrated to her by her friend namely Sumedh FIR No. 104/2014 State Vs. Dilip Chawla 14 of 17 Bharadwaj and it is therefore, admitted that the alleged use of filthy and indecent language was never communicated to the complainant by the accused on any of the alleged dates or through any electronic medium. It is further seen that the complainant has alleged to have been harassed by the accused in front of several people at gymkhana club, Delhi, however, none of the aforesaid witnesses have been examined to substantiate the aforesaid allegation of harassment. Further, the complainant has stated that the accused stalked her on several occasions but she fails to mention even a single date, time or place where the accused followed her or she showed her objection towards the behaviour of the accused. She further stated that the accused had misbehaved with her on previous occasions and she had filed a complaint to women helpline number and even made a call at 100 number, however, no such complaint or copy of FIR or 100 number call was placed on record. She did not remember the dates of any of incidents upon which accused had misbehaved with her on earlier occasion. Further, the complaint discloses of all the incidents narrated to the complainant by her friend namely Sumedh Bharadwaj who never appeared before the court and was declared untraceable and therefore, the entire complaint Ex.PW 1/A is only of hearsay nature and therefore, the same is devoid of merit. The complainant did not disclose regarding the reason as to why the accused allegedly started harassing her that is when she FIR No. 104/2014 State Vs. Dilip Chawla 15 of 17 admits that the accused was known to her since her childhood and she admittedly even visited the house of the accused for dinners and parties and was known to other family members of the accused and therefore, false implication cannot be ruled out.
10. In the present matter, accused has been charged for the offence u/s 354D/506/509 IPC, however, none of the ingredients of the aforesaid offences have been proved by the prosecution against the accused.
11. In the present fact and circumstances, accused cannot be held liable for stalking or of abusing the complainant and threatening her.
12. The improvement in the version of PW1 is crucial as Ex.
PW1/A is a typed written complaint admittedly prepared by her after having enough time to narrate the incidents and there is no justification or plausible ground as to why the complainant was unable to narrate the incidents explicitly or elaborate upon the details particularly when the same has been written when the complainant was not under immediate shock. The very fact that the complainant did not mention about the alleged acts of harassment or the alleged abusive language towards her. Further, the allegations of maligning the image of the complainant again are not substantiated by any corroborative evidence such as FIR No. 104/2014 State Vs. Dilip Chawla 16 of 17 alleged messages or call records etc. Further, the complainant has not disputed that the accused was suffering from schizophrenia and was not in a position to understand implications of his act and was undergoing treatment from 12.03.2014 to 26.07.2014. Therefore, the allegations of intention to outrage her modesty are also not sustainable as the same are completely vague and do not inspire confidence. The complainant has levelled general allegations against the accused and the same are devoid of merit. Therefore, there was nothing to lend support to the testimony of PW1 apart from bald averments made in the complaint and her testimony before the court. Therefore, it can be safely concluded that the guilt of the accused has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt.
13. In view of the above discussion and considering the material, available on record, the guilt of the accused is not proved beyond reasonable doubts. Therefore, accused Dilip Chawla is acquitted for the offences U/s 354D/506/509 IPC.
Announced in the Open Court (Sheetal Chaudhary Pradhan)
on 15.10.2018 Metropolitan Magistrate02
(Mahila Court), SouthEast,
Digitally Saket, New Delhi.
signed
by SHEETAL
SHEETAL CHAUDHARY
CHAUDHARY PRADHAN
PRADHAN Date:
2018.10.16
11:38:02 +0530
FIR No. 104/2014 State Vs. Dilip Chawla 17 of 17