Delhi District Court
Ankur Goyal vs The State Of Nct Of Delhi on 17 April, 2015
...1/-
IN THE COURT OF SH. R. B. SINGH ASJ-02 NORTH DISTRICT,
ROHINI COURTS, DELHI.
CR NO. 35/14
1. Ankur Goyal
2. Tarun Goyal
Both Sons of Sh. Dinesh Kumar Goyal,
R/o A-104, Old Gupta Colony,
Delhi.
.......Revisionist
Versus
The State of NCT of Delhi. ....... Respondent
ORDER
By this order, I propose to dispose of this criminal revision petition U/s 397/401 Cr.P.C against the impugned order on charge dated 17.09.2014 passed by the court of Sh. Rajinder Kumar, Ld M.M. Rohini Court, Delhi thereby framing the charge against the revisionists.
2. Ld. Counsel for the revisionist has submitted that the petitioners are peace-loving, law-abiding and educated upto B.Com / M.B.A. Citizens of Delhi, and working in the MNC/Private company. In the beginning of 2012, the complainant being a builder / contractor started construction of property No. E-108, Old Gupta Colony, situated across the road, opposite to the residential house of the petitioners, owned by one Smt. Sushma Verma. The complainant / builder encroached upon the road, which was objected to by Sh. Dinesh Kumar Goyal, father of the petitioners and when the complainant / builder CR No. 35/14 Ankur Goyal & Ors. Vs. State Page 1 of 7 ...2/-
Ravinder Singh continued with the encroachment on the road for construction, the father of the petitioners made a complaint to the MCD. MCD issued a notice dated 10.04.2012 and Stop Work Notice dated 26.04.2012 to the said builder and the owner of the property E-108, Old Gupta Colony, Delhi. The said builder, having a long standing, was able to get registered the above-mentioned false criminal case against the petitioners, their father and one Preet Pal Singh (main accused) U/s 384/385/506/34 IPC by using his influence with the police and by indulging Preet Pal Singh and Dinesh Kumar Goyal in some talks, putting words in their mouths in order to make out a case of extortion against them. The CDs and the transcript in Hindi are already on record and the transcripts having talks between the complaint Ravinder Singh with other two accused are annexed herewith the petition. The complainant has registered the abovesaid case with the sole purpose of completing the construction of his building and in vengeances against Sh. Dinesh kumar to pressurize him to withdraw his complaint. The case was registered U/s 384/385/506/34 IPC despite the fact that no money or valuable security was given by the complainant to any person for having fear of injury. Sections 383, 384 & 44 reads as under :
Section 383 : Extortion :Whoever intentionally puts any person in fear of any injury to that person or to any other, and thereby dishonestly induced the person so put in fear to deliver to any person, any property or valuable security or anything signed or sealed which may be converted into valuable security, commits extortion.CR No. 35/14 Ankur Goyal & Ors. Vs. State Page 2 of 7
...3/-
Section 384 : Punishment For Extortion : Whoever commits extortion shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years or with fine or both.
Section 44 : Injury : Injury denotes any harm whatever illegally caused to any person in body, mind, reputation or property. The injury must be one, which the accused can himself inflict or cause to be inflicted.
The threat of reporting the matter to concerned Govt. Department against illegal activity is not a threat and does not amount to fear of injury to the person doing such act not permissible under the law and does not amount to any extortion. The petitioners assail the impugned order on charge dated 17.09.2014 and framing of charge dated 17.09.2014 inter-alia on the following grounds :
a) That the ld. M.M. has not correctly appreciated the facts of the case and the provisions of law applicable in this case.
b) That the ld. M.M. failed to appreciate that there is no manifest fear of injury to the complainant Ravinder Singh from any corner who is having free talks with the prime accused Preet Pal Singh and which can be safely concluded to be business talks.
c) That the ld. M.M. Has passed the vitiated and perverse order without considering that the essence of the offence of extortion is in actual delivery of possession of property by person put in fear and the offence is not complete before such delivery "Labhashankar Vs. State, AIR1955 SAU 42, 1955 Cr.LJ 839". There is in fact no delivery of any property by the complainant to any person.CR No. 35/14 Ankur Goyal & Ors. Vs. State Page 3 of 7
...4/-
d) That the threats alleged to have been made by the revisionist alongwith their father are in vague terms and no specific allegation is made against the petitioners / revisionist.
e) That the fear of injury to the complainant is not found anywhere, even in the two transcripts (CDs) placed on record, the complainant himself putting words in the mouth of the other two accused persons which appears to be business talks.
f) That the petitioners and other two accused persons cannot be charged U/s 384 IPC when there is no delivery of money or valuable security by the person put in the alleged fear of injury.
g) That the complainant has been able to complete the building despite "Stop Work Notice" issued by MCD and this was only possible due to the fact that the complainant did not have any fear of injury.
h) That the complainant roped in the petitioners / revisionists, both sons of Sh. Dinesh Kumar, who made a complaint for encroachment of public road to the MCD and thereafter, as an act of vengeance and to pressurize Sh. Dinesh Kumar to withdraw his complaint while the "Stop Work Notice" was already issued much earlier by the MCD.
i) That there is no evidence of putting the complainant in fear of injury by the revisionist even if entire version of the prosecution is believed to be correct.
It is, therefore, prayed that the impugned order on charge and the charge framed against the petitioner / revision on dated 17.09.2014 by the court of Sh. Rajinder Kumar, ld. M.M. Rohini Courts, Delhi my CR No. 35/14 Ankur Goyal & Ors. Vs. State Page 4 of 7 ...5/-
be set aside. The ld. Trial Court Record may be summoned and the proceedings before the ld. M.M. May be stayed till the disposal of the present revision petition in the interest of justice.
4. On the contrary, ld Addl. PP for the State has submitted that the order of the Ld Trial Court do not call for any interference as the ld. Trial Court has passed a proper and legal order with due application of mind. It is, therefore, prayed that the present revision petition may be dismissed.
5. I have heard arguments on behalf of revisionist and on the behalf of State and perused the material on record carefully. Ld. Counsel for the revisionist has also filed the written submissions and has also relied upon the following case laws :
i) Crl. Appeal No.149 of 2007 decided on 02.02.2007 in the case entitled as Dhananjay @ Dhananjay Kumar Singh Vs. State of Bihar & Anr.
ii) Crl. Appeal No.1866 of 1995 decided on 05.02.2001 in case entitled as Sanjay Pandey, D.C.P., Narcotic Cell, Bombay Vs. Chhaganlal J. Jain & Ors.
and I have perused the same also.
6. After hearing arguments and on the perusal of the record reveals that the revisionists Ankur Goyal and Tarun Goyal have filed this revision petition U/s 397 Cr.P.C against the impugned order on charge dated 19.09.2014 passed by the court of Sh. Rajinder Kumar, Ld M.M. Rohini Court, Delhi, with the submissions that the ld. Trial Court has not CR No. 35/14 Ankur Goyal & Ors. Vs. State Page 5 of 7 ...6/-
correctly appreciated the facts of the case and the provisions of law applicable in this case as there is no alleged fear of injury to the complainant Ravinder Singh by the revisionists. The perusal of the order dated 17.09.2014 reveals that the ld. Trial Court has passed a very brief order and has not given reasons for arriving at the conclusion for framing of charge U/S 384/385/34 IPC against the revisionists Ankur Goyal and Tarun Goyal. Hence, this court is of the considered opinion that the matter is liable to be remanded back to the Trial Court with a direction to hear the arguments on charge afresh qua the revisionists Ankur Goyal and Tarun Goyal and pass a detailed and speaking order.
7. Consequently, the impugned order dated 17.09.2014 is set- aside qua the revisionists Ankur Goyal and Tarun Goyal and the matter is remanded back to the ld. Trial Court of Sh. Ravinder Kumar, ld. M.M., Rohini Courts, Delhi, for hearing the arguments afresh on the point of charge and for passing a detailed and speaking order. The present revision petition is disposed of accordingly.
8. A copy of this order alongwith the ld. Trial Court Record be sent back to the Ld Trial Court on 25.04.2015 at 2.00 PM through office of ld. CMM, North, Rohini Courts, Delhi for necessary information and compliance. The revisionists and their counsel are directed to appear before the Ld Trial Court on 25.04.2015 at 2.00 PM. Ahlmad of this court to send the file forthwith.
9. The revision petition file be consigned to Record Room after CR No. 35/14 Ankur Goyal & Ors. Vs. State Page 6 of 7 ...7/-
necessary compliance.
Announced in open court ( R. B. SINGH )
Dated: 17.04.2015 Addl. Sessions Judge-02(North)
Rohini Courts : Delhi/ 17.04.2015
CR No. 35/14 Ankur Goyal & Ors. Vs. State Page 7 of 7