Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

3. Respondent No. 2 is a member of PTI Employees' Union Delhi and takes active interest in its activity. In January, 2001, respondent No. 2 won the election and became the national councilor of Federation of PTI Employees Union and he raised bona fide demands of the employees and also protested against the autocratic style of functioning of petitioner No. 1. Ever since respondent No. 2, started actively participating in the Trade Union activities and raised his voice in protest against the petitioner, the petitioner in collusion with M.S.Yadav, the Joint Secretary of the Federation of PTI Employees Union, started targeting, harassing, victimizing respondent No. 2 on the one pretext or other with a view to compel him to leave the organisation. Later on, petitioners in collusion and connivance with Ms.Ekta Thani, falsely implicated respondent No. 2 in the matter of sexual harassment of Ms.Ekta Thani and respondent No. 2 started getting show cause letters on one false ground or the other. Petitioners 1 and 2 made the life of respondent No. 2 worse than hell and started harassing and victimizing and pressuring him by leveling false charges on him, so that he leave the organization.

13. Under these circumstances, petitioners have made false charges against respondent No. 2 to the SHO P.S.Greater Kailash-I and by getting a false F.I.R. registered against him has committed offence under Section 211 IPC and by making false and forged document dated August 23, 2002 and by making material alteration in the medical certificate submitted by respondent No. 2 without lawful authority, have committed offences Under Section 463/464/465/469/471 IPC.

14. In the petition seeking quashing of the summoning order as well as proceedings arising of the complaint case pending in the Court of Magistrate, it has been stated by the Petitioners that the summoning order has been passed in a casual and perfunctory manner without due application of mind. Entire case of respondent No. 2 is based on mis-representation and concealment of facts. The present petitioners have been falsely implicated in this case. The complaint filed by respondent No. 2 is a clear case of vendetta without any just reason or basis as respondent No. 2 is attempting to force and pressurize petitioners to allow him to work in the company on his own terms and conditions. No expert evidence has been brought on record and no attempt was made to prove document in question i.e. letter dated 23rd August, 2002 was created or forged and alterations were made in the medical certificate by the petitioners. Mere statement of respondent No. 2 and statement of witnesses would not be sufficient to prove the basic ingredient of offence under Section 471 IPC. In order to prove forgery, original document is the best evidence but the same has not been placed before the Court of Magistrate. Besides, the case of respondent No. 2 is user of alleged forged documents in Mumbai and hence Delhi Courts have no jurisdiction to try the said offence. Further, the handwriting expert has opined that there are no significant differences between the disputed signatures on the document and standard signatures and writing of respondent No. 2.

36. Section 211 IPC reads as under:

False charge of offence made with intent to injure.- Whoever, with intent to cause injury to any person, institutes or causes to be instituted any criminal proceeding against that person, or falsely charges any person with having committed an offence, knowing that there is no just or lawful ground for such proceeding or charge against that person, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both; and if such criminal proceeding be instituted on a false charge of an offence punishable with death, imprisonment for life, or imprisonment for seven years or upwards, shall be punishable with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.

38. On the other hand, as per copy of the FIR No. 9/2003 which has been placed on record, the complainant is constable Nandlal. So, FIR No. 9/2003 has not been lodged by petitioner No. 1 at all and all the averments made in this FIR has been recorded at the instance of constable Nandlal.

39. There is also nothing on record to show as to what happened in that case in which FIR No. 9/2003 has been lodged; whether that case is still pending or the same has been decided. There is no finding of any Court on record that in those criminal proceedings, false charges have been made against respondent No. 2 or the FIR has been found to be false.