Signature Not Verified Digitally ... vs In Item Nos. 151, 211 & 212. Mr Puneet ... on 12 September, 2022
6. Ld. Counsel for R2 accused Meena Sharma opposed
the complaint/appeal and submitted that Judgment of Ld. Trial
Court was a judicious and legally sound one, which was passed
after hearing both the sides and appreciating the evidence
brought on record. R2 has filed the written submissions and
denied the contents of the present appeal being not maintainable
and that Ld. Trial Court gave ample opportunities to appellant,
who intentionally and deliberately and with motive to harass R2
did not support the Ld. Trial Court nor participated in filing the
Cr. Appeal No. 72/2024 Harish Chand Jain Vs. State of NCT of Delhi & Anr. Page 3 Of 15
Digitally signed
KUMAR by KUMAR
RAJAT
RAJAT Date: 2025.06.03
16:12:20 +0530
original documents and always linger on the proceedings and R2
defended the case for 15 years and the only eye witness Liyakat
Ali turned hostile and stated that appellant is habitual litigant,
who has filed many cases of similar nature against his landlords
to extort money. It is also submitted that there was an
unexplained delay of 24 days in lodging the FIR and appellant
himself vacated the tenanted premises without clearing the
arrears of rent and then, R2 served him legal notice and as a
counter-blast, he filed the present FIR to escape liability of rent
of Rs. 26,400/- and there is no document on record regarding the
incident of 18.11.2009. The appellant deliberately did not bring
original documents to delay the proceedings and his right to be
cross-examined was rightly closed and the complainant was
habitual of filing the transfer petition just to delay the matter and
appellant had not preferred any revision/appeal against the order
dated 20.07.2023 and the application of Ld. APP under 311
Cr.P.C. was rightly dismissed by Ld. Trial Court and it was the
complainant, who did not make himself available for his cross-
examination and as such the said judgment does not need any
interference.