State vs Vinod Kumar
2011 Latest Caselaw 902 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 ?

Crl.M.C. Nos.1842/2009 & 1908/2009                                   Page 1 of 9
 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