Anand Mohan & Ors. vs State(Through Nct Of Delhi)
2011 Latest Caselaw 1050 Del

*	IN  THE  HIGH  COURT  OF  DELHI  AT  NEW  DELHI

				 Judgment reserved on: February 15, 2011                                				 Judgment delivered on: February 22, 2011

+ 	CRL.M.C. 1842/2009

	ANAND MOHAN & ORS.				  ....PETITIONERS
Through:	Ms. Rebecca M.John, Advocate with Mr. Vishal Gosain & Mr. Abhishek Batra, Advocates.

				Versus

STATE
(THROUGH N.C.T. OF DELHI) & ANR.     ....RESPONDENTS
Through:	Mr. Pawan Sharma, Standing Counsel with Ms. Laxmi Chauhan, Advocate for the respondent No. 1.  

Ms. Rakhi Dubey, Advocate for the respondent No.2.

	
WITH

+ 	CRL.M.C.1908/2009

	STATE						  	  ....PETITIONER
Through:	Mr. Pawan Sharma, Standing Counsel with Ms. Laxmi Chauhan, Advocate.

				Versus

VINOD KUMAR					         ....RESPONDENT
Through:	Ms. Rakhi Dubey, Advocate. 



	 CORAM:
	 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJIT BHARIHOKE
	 
1.	Whether Reporters of local papers 
may be allowed to see the judgment?  	
			
2.	To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 	

3.	Whether the judgment should be 
reported in Digest ?  					
	


AJIT BHARIHOKE, J.

1. These two petitions, one filed by the police officers, namely, Anand Mohan, DCP and others, and the other filed by the State are directed against the impugned order dated 06.06.2009 passed by learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Karkardooma, Delhi in complaint case No.179/1 wherein the petitioners have prayed for the quashing of the impugned order dated 06.06.2009 directing registration of an FIR against Anand Mohan, DCP and other police officials.

2. Briefly stated, facts relevant for the disposal of these petitions are that respondent Vinod Kumar filed a complaint under Section 156(3) read with Section 200 of Cr.P.C., being complaint case No.213/1 claiming that on 20.02.2009 he took premises No.H-42, Shakar Pur, Delhi on rent and at the time of letting, he had paid a sum of `50,000/- as surety to the accused persons. It is significant to note that in the title of the complaint, respondent No.2 had mentioned "Vinod Kumar Vs. Vikram Singh and Others" without detailing the names of others. It was alleged in the said complaint that on the morning of 07.03.2009, the accused persons visited the tenanted premises along with two persons and they demanded a sum of `5,000/- from the complainant (should be `50,000/-) and respondent No.2 refused to pay the amount of `50,000/. On this, the accused persons, as mentioned in the complaint, got annoyed and started using filthy language. When respondent No.2 objected to their conduct, the accused persons hit respondent No.2 (complainant) on his head with an iron rod. The other two persons also gave beating to respondent No.2. The matter was reported to the police on telephone No.100. The police officials came at the spot of occurrence and respondent No.2 was taken to the hospital where he was treated and his MLC was prepared. It is also alleged in that complaint that in the afternoon of 07.03.2009, the accused persons had threatened the complainant with life if he failed to vacate the tenanted premises. This complaint was filed on 10.03.2009.

3. On 08.03.2009, on the complaint of Smt.Kanta Devi (landlady) FIR No.120/2009 under Section 448 IPC was registered at P.S. Shakarpur against respondent No.2 on the allegations that he trespassed into the first floor portion of House No.42-B Shakar Pur belonging to Kanta Devi and took forcible possession of the same. Respondent No.2 was arrested in this case on 08.03.2009 and produced in the court and was remanded to judicial custody as he failed to furnish the surety bond as ordered by the Court. Ultimately, he was released on bail in case FIR No.120/2009, P.S. Shakar Pur on 24.03.2009.

4. A second complaint dated 30.04.2009 was filed naming 14 accused persons, including 6 police officials on the allegations that respondent No.2 (complainant in that matter) was a tenant in respect of the demised premises under accused Vikram Singh and Kanta Devi which was let out to him on 20.02.2009. It was alleged in this complaint that the accused persons had thrown out the goods of the complainant/respondent No.2 from the tenanted premises and forcibly taken possession from him on 08.03.2009 and that they had also snatched a sum of `50,000/- as well as Ration Card and Cheque Book of the wife of respondent No.2/complainant from him. The complainant reported the matter at telephone No.100 from his mobile phone on 2 or 3 occasions but the police officials threatened him and forced respondent No.2 to sign blank papers and when respondent No.2 refused to sign those blank papers, the police officials gave beating to him. It is further alleged in that complaint that police officials arrived at his residence and obtained the signatures from the wife as well as daughter of the complainant.

5. Both the above noted complaints No.213/1 and 179/1 were taken up by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Karkardooma Courts on 06.06.2009 and he directed the SHO concerned under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. to register an FIR on the basis of those complaints and conduct investigation.

6. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid order of learned M.M., the police officials named in the complaint against whom the FIR has been registered have filed instant petition seeking quashing of the order dated 6.6.2009 passed by the learned M.M.

7. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioners police officials that the impugned order dated 06.06.2009 of learned Metropolitan Magistrate in complaint case No.179/1 has been passed in a routine manner without due application of mind to the facts of the case. Learned Ms. Rebecca M. John, Advocate appearing for the petitioners submitted that perusal of complaint No.213/1 as well as complaint No.179/1, both filed by respondent No.2, would show that these two complaints relate to the purported tenancy dispute in respect of property No.42-B, Shakarpur Khas, Delhi. Learned counsel contended that the earlier complaint No.213/1 dated 10.03.2009 is bereft of any allegation relating to alleged incident dated 08.03.2009, which is subject matter of the consequent complaint No.179/1 and there is no allegation in the earlier complaint No.213/1 dated 10.03.2009 against the petitioners police officials. Learned counsel further submitted that it would be significant to note that on 08.03.2009 itself, respondent No.2 was arrested in a case under Section 448 IPC FIR No.120/09 P.S. Shakarpur on the complaint of landlady Kanta Devi claiming that respondent No.2 had trespassed and taken forcible possession of first floor of premises No.42-B, Shakarpur belonging to her. Learned counsel argued that had the allegations in the consequent complaint No.179/1 against the police officials been correct, under the natural course of circumstances, the respondent No.2 would have mentioned about the incident dated 08.03.2009 and the role played by the police officials in his earlier complaint which was drafted on 10.03.2009. From this, learned counsel for the petitioners has urged this court to infer that the allegations against the police officials in the subsequent complaint case No.179/1 are based on afterthought and it is a counter-blast to the registration of FIR on the complaint of the landlady by the police against respondent No.2. Learned counsel has thus pressed for the quashing of impugned order directing registration of FIR on the basis of second complaint No.179/1 qua the petitioners police officials.

8. Learned Shri Pawan Sharma, Standing Counsel appearing for the State in Crl.M.C. No.1908/2009 has also argued on the same lines. He further contended that perusal of the complaint No.179/1 filed by respondent No.2 would show that this complaint is bereft of specific details of role played by the police officials and it is full of vague allegations against the aforesaid police officials. Therefore, also the order is liable to quashed.

9. Learned Ms. Rakhi Dubey, Advocate appearing for respondent No.2 on the contrary contended that submissions made on behalf of respective petitioners are misconceived. She argued that there is no interlink between the two complaints as subject matter of earlier complaint No.213/1 is the incident which took place on 07.03.2009, whereas the complaint No.179/1 relates to another incident which took place on 08.03.2009. She submitted that perusal of second complaint No.179/1 would show that respondent No.2 had not concealed the factum of filing of earlier complaint relating to the incident dated 07.03.2009. Learned counsel argued that since both the complaints relate to two different occurrences disclosing commission of offence, learned M.M. was right in directing registration of FIR under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. on the basis of the subsequent complaint case No.179/1.

10. I have considered the rival contentions and perused the material on record. Petitioners in Crl.M.C. No.1842/2009 have placed on record the copies of the complaints No.213/1 and 179/1 both filed under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. in the court of C.M.M., Karkardooma Courts, Shahdara as Annexures "C" and "D" respectively.

11. On perusal, it transpires that complaint No.213/1 is dated 10.03.2009 and is in respect of the alleged incident dated 07.03.2009. It was filed by the petitioner against Vikram Singh and others without giving the details of others.

12. On perusal of the second complaint No.179/1 filed by Vinod Kumar, complainant/respondent against 14 persons, including six police officials dated 30.04.2009, it transpires that the said complaint was filed on allegations that Vinod Kumar/respondent No.2 had taken the demised premises on rent from Vikram Singh and Kanta on 20.02.2009. On 08.03.2009, Vikram Singh and Kanta forcibly dispossessed Vinod Kumar/respondent from the tenanted premises by throwing away his goods and they also snatched `50,000/- , ration card and the cheque book of wife of the complainant. The complainant thus informed the police on telephone No.100. The police officials arrived at the spot of occurrence and pressurised respondent No.2 Vinod Kumar to sign some blank papers and when respondent No.2 Vinod Kumar refused to oblige, the police officials gave beating to him. It is also alleged in the complaint that police officials obtained signatures of the wife as well as daughter of the complainant. Thereafter, they registered an FIR under Section 448 IPC against the complainant Vinod Kumar, arrested him on 08.03.2009 and produced him before the Magistrate, who was remanded to judicial custody.

13. Though complaint No. 179/1 relates to alleged occurrence dated 08.03.2009, it was admittedly filed after a considerable delay as it is dated 30.04.2009. The names and designations of the police officers who allegedly reached at the spot are also not detailed in the body of the complaint. Therefore, a strong possibility of the allegations against the petitioner police officers being a result of afterthought and manipulation to settle scores with the police officials cannot be ruled out. Otherwise also, if the allegations in complaint No.179/1 were true, then under the natural course of circumstances, respondent No.2 Vinod Kumar was expected to raise his grievance against the alleged conduct of the police officials (petitioners) on 08.03.2009 in his earlier complaint No. 213/1 which is dated 10.03.2009. There is not even a whisper of any wrong done by the police officials in the earlier complaint No.213/1 of the year 2009. This circumstance, coupled with the fact that subsequent complaint No.179/1 dated 30.04.2009 was filed at such a belated stage, clearly indicates that second complaint against the police officials is mala fide, being the result of due deliberations with a view to exert pressure upon the police.

14. In view of the above, I am of the considered view that this is a fit case for quashing the FIR registered under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. on the basis of complaint No.179/1 pursuant to the impugned order dated 06.06.2009 qua the petitioners police officials, namely, Anand Mohan, DCP, Raj Singh Chauhan, ACP, Vijay Dham, SHO, V.K.P.S. Yadav, Addl SHO, Santosh Pabrid, Sub Inspector, Jaipal Singh, Sub Inspector and Sompal, Head Constable.

15. Petitions are allowed. The order of learned Metropolitan Magistrate dated 06.06.2009 qua the petitioner police officers in Criminal Complaint no. 179/1 is set aside and the FIR No. 288/2009, P.S. Shakarpur registered pursuant to the impugned order is quashed qua the police officials/petitioners.

16. Petitions are disposed of accordingly.

(AJIT BHARIHOKE) JUDGE FEBRUARY 22, 2011 ks/pst