Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

8. DW-2, Satish Kumar Meena was a summoned witness and brought the personal report of complainant Kaveri. He stated that as per the report the FIR No. 28/04 State Vs. Hridya Narain 8/16 complainant has lodged several complaints against some staff and officials and few complaints were also lodged against her and placed on record the copy of the record as Mark-DW2/A and office record was returned to him after seeing the original.

In his cross-examination, he stated that presently he is posted as Deputy Manager (Personal) and brought the personal record of complainant. He stated that he has no personal knowledge about the present case and of the allegations levelled by the complainant against the accused persons and deposing as per the record (personal file) of complainant. He admitted that Ex. DW2/A was not prepared by him and was prepared by General Manager. He admitted that only photocopy of the 3 complaints filed by the complainant are part of Ex. DW2/A and other complaints made by the complainant in the year 2004 which were mentioned in Ex. DW2/A are not placed on record. He denied the suggest that documents Ex.DW2/A is false record being forward by General Manager without going into authenticity of the allegations and the correctness of the description of the number/contents of the complaint as mentioned in the Ex. DW2/A. He voluntarily added that as per record Ex. DW2/A, 3 of the complaints dated 27.09.2004, 16.07.2007 and 23.07.2007 were found to be baseless. He stated that he has no idea whether any complaint case of defamation was filed by the complainant in the Hon'ble High Court against staff of the Department or not. He denied the suggestion that complainant was compelled to take voluntarily retirement due to harassment and indecent behaviour of accused Hridya Narian and K. S. Dhunna. He stated that it is correct that the complainant Kaveri has not filed any complaint against him.

In his cross-examination, he stated that from the past 5 years he is working as an Administration Officer at Store Department, Custom Section and working in Store Department from past 32 years at IGI Airport. He knows accused Hridya Narain from last 32 years but accused K.S. Dhunna never happened to be his immediate boss. He stated that he share formal relationship with accused Hridya Narain. He stated that no police case was registered against him on complaint made by the complainant. He voluntarily stated that they verbally inquired form him in front of his senior. He is not facing any trial before any court. He stated that he does not know any FIR number of the 92 cases which as per him have been filed by the complainant and relates to molestation and abusive language. He stated that complaint had filed one police case leveling allegation of molestation and abusive language against him. He admitted that the complainant has filed defamation case against 92 persons in High Court demanding compensation of Rs. 5 crores in relation to the documents signed by 92 persons FIR No. 28/04 State Vs. Hridya Narain 10/16 where all of them stated that the complainant is a habitual litigant and harass the employees and officers of department. She is habitual of making false complaints against the employees of the department and this has demoralized the employees of department. He stated that he cannot tell whether any incident of indecency by accused Hridya Narain happened or not. He denied the suggestion that he is deposing in favour of accused Hridya Narain since he had cordial relationship with him. He denied the suggestion that due to harassment and indecent behavior being meted out by the accused, the complainant is compelled to take voluntarily retirement.

10. Lastly accused examined himself U/s 315 Cr.P.C and stated that earlier the complainant was working with late accused K.S. Dhunna. The complainant made complaint against him. The complaint was considered by then CMD Ms. Sushma Chawla in view of her complaint the management was willing to transfer her but none of the department were ready to accept her. Since he was the General Secretary of SC/ST Association and the complainant is also SC, management transferred her under him. She used to file complaint under SC/ST Act against number of persons. There was no dispute between him and complainant but the dispute was between the then General Secretary and Regional Secretary Mr. Mir Singh. She filed the complaint against him on the instigation of Mir Singh to pressurize him. She has gone to High Court under SC/ST Act and her petition was rejected. He placed on record the report Ex. DW4/A received by him from RTI that complainant has approximately filed 8 complaints but during the course of the enquiry the allegations leveled by complainant could not be substantiated and complaints were filed by DCP/IGI Airport. He also placed on record 2 letters dated 16.07.2004, Ex. DW4/B and Ex. DW4/C, reprimanding the complainant for not properly discharging her duties and FIR No. 28/04 State Vs. Hridya Narain 11/16 her misconduct. He also placed on record a letter Ex. PW4/F written by landlord of complainant namely Kripa Shankar Gupta regarding her misconduct by detaining the tenanted premises without paying rent and constant threatening to him and his family for implicating them in false cases. He also placed on record the summoned issued by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi to several persons in the defamation case filed by the complainant and lastly the circular issued by the complainant against other accused K.S. Dhunna as Mark-DW4/A. In his cross-examination, he denied the suggestion that the documents Mark-Ex. DW4/B and Ex. DW4/C are false and fabricated or were prepared to create false defence. He also denied the suggestion that Mark DW-4/F is false and fabricated and the same was prepared by him in collusion with Kripa Shankar Gupta to create false defence. He said he cannot say whether the writer of said document namely Sh. Kripa Shankar had filed any Civil petition against the complainant or not. He admitted that the document Mark DW4/F was filed after the filing of the present case. He admitted that complainant had filed defamation case in the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi against 92 persons but voluntarily added that the same has been closed. He has no documentary proof to support his statement that the petition of the complainant in Hon'ble High Court of Delhi is closed. He admitted that document Ex. DW4/D under the seal of Administrative Officer, Registrar General was at the stage of calling the defendants to produce documents in their defence. He denied the suggestion that the petition of the complainant in defamation case has been admitted as it disclosed prima facie case against the defendants. He voluntarily added that he is not a party in that case. He denied the suggestion that he is also the defendant in the defamation case filed by the complainant before Hon'ble High Court of Delhi. He stated that he has not brought any documents to prove that he is not the party in the said petition before the Hon'ble High Court. He admitted that the complainant FIR No. 28/04 State Vs. Hridya Narain 12/16 had taken voluntarily retirement from the job. He denied the suggestion that he and other accused K.S. Dhunna harassed and insulted the complainant to such an extent that she has to take voluntarily retirement from the service.