Delhi High Court
Ashok Singh vs State Of Nct Of Delhi & Anr on 19 November, 2013
Author: J.R. Midha
$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Reserved on : 12th September, 2013
Date of decision : 19th November, 2013
+ CRL.M.C. 1783/2012 & Crl.M.A.6262/2012
TEXMACO LTD. & ORS. ..... Petitioner
Through Mr. Sandeep Sethi, Sr. Adv.
with Sh.Vijayender Kumar
& Sh.Dhruv Kapoor &
Ms.Megha Bansiwal, Advs.
versus
STATE OF DELHI & ANR. ..... Respondent
Through Mr. Varun Goswami, APP.
Mr. Sanjeev Sahay and Ms.
Jhum Jhum Sarkar, Advs.
for R-2.
+ CRL.M.C. 2035/2012 & Crl.M.A.7045/2012
ASHOK SINGH ..... Petitioner
Through Mr. Sandeep Sethi, Sr. Adv.
with Sh.Vijayender Kumar
& Sh.Dhruv Kapoor &
Ms.Megha Bansiwal, Advs.
versus
STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. ..... Respondent
Through Mr. Varun Goswami, APP.
Mr. Sanjeev Sahay and Ms.
Jhum Jhum Sarkar, Advs.
for R-2.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.R. MIDHA
Crl. M.C.1783/2012 Page 1 of 8
JUDGMENT
1. The petitioners are seeking quashing of FIR No.81/2012,
P.S. Roop Nagar under Sections 380/448/452/506/34 IPC and the
complaint bearing No.335/K/2011 titled Ved Prakash vs. Radhey
Shyam Sharma & Others filed by the respondent no.2 in which the
police has been directed to carry out the investigation under
Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.
2. Bhure Lal, father of respondent No.2, was employed with
M/s. Birla Cotton Spinning and Weaving Mills Ltd. as back as in
1951, and he was allotted a residential accommodation bearing
quarter No.90-B, Shivaji Lines, Shakti Nagar, Delhi - 110007 on
licence basis by virtue of the said employment. The rights of M/s.
Birla Cotton Spinning and Weaving Mills Ltd. were acquired by
petitioner No.1 in Crl.M.C.No.1783/2012 (hereinafter referred to as
"Texmaco") by a Scheme of Arrangement with effect from 1st
April, 1981.
3. In September, 1995, Bhure Lal, father of respondent no.2,
ceased to be in employment but continued the occupation of the
above quarter. Bhure Lal died on 18th January, 1995 whereupon
his legal heirs continued the occupation of quarter No.90-B.
4. In 1996, Texmaco filed a complaint against the legal
representatives of Bhure Lal under Section 630 of the Companies
Act which resulted in conviction which was challenged before this
Court in Crl.M.C. 80/2011 in which the mother of respondent no.2
handed over the possession of quarter no.90-B to Texmaco on 23rd
February, 2011.
5. Quarter No.89-B, Shivaji Lines, Shakti Nagar, Delhi-110007
was allotted to Jai Narain under a service licence similar to that of
Bhure Lal and Texmaco instituted a similar complaint against him
under Section 630 of the Companies Act which resulted in his
conviction in pursuance to which Jai Narain handed over the vacant
and peaceful possession of quarter No.89-B to Texmaco on 11th
November, 2010.
6. On 3rd July, 2011, during the inspection, Texmaco found
respondent no.2 in illegal possession of quarter No.89-B and the
matter was reported to the police whereupon respondent no.2 made
a statement to the police that he would vacate quarter no.89-B on
15th July, 2011. In pursuance to the above statement, respondent
no.2 handed over the possession to Texmaco on 17th July, 2011.
7. On 3rd August, 2011, respondent no.2 filed a complaint in
which he stated that quarter No.89B was also given to his father.
He has further stated that he joined Birla Mills and started living in
quarter No.89B whereas his mother and other family members
resided in quarter No.90B after the death of his father. Respondent
No.2 further stated that security guards of the petitioners illegally
dispossessed him from quarter No.89B on 3rd July, 2011.
8. Vide order dated 10th May, 2012, the learned Metropolitan
Magistrate directed the police to investigate the matter in
pursuance to which the police registered FIR no.81/2012, P.S.
Roop Nagar under Sections 380/448/452/506/34 IPC and
conducted the investigation.
9. During the investigation, respondent no.2 was repeatedly
called upon by the Investigating Officer to produce the document
relating to the employment with Birla Mills/Texmaco Ltd.; and the
document relating to the allotment/occupation of quarter No.89B.
The copies of the notices dated 3rd September, 2012 and 12th
September, 2012 have been placed on record. The learned APP for
the State submits that respondent no.2 has neither produced any
document to show his employment with the petitioner/Birla Mills
Ltd. nor the allotment of quarter No.89B to him.
10. The police has completed the investigation and has filed the
final report that no offence is made out against the petitioners and
therefore, the case be closed. The police has confirmed that quarter
No.89B was allotted to Jai Narain who handed over the possession
to Texmaco on 11th November, 2010 after conviction under Section
630 of the Companies Act; respondent no.2 illegally entered into
the said quarter which came to the notice of the petitioners on 3 rd
July 2011 whereupon they reported the matter to the police and
respondent no.2 made a statement to the police that he would
vacate the quarter on 15th July, 2011; and respondent no.2 handed
over the vacant possession to Texmaco on 17th July, 2011.
11. The petitioners have placed on record the following
documents:-
(i) Judgment dated 28th July, 2010 in Texmaco Ltd. v. Kusum
Lata (mother of respondent no.2) whereby the learned ACMM
convicted Kusum Lata (widow of Late Bhure Lal and mother of
respondent no.2) under Section 630 of Companies Act for
wrongfully withholding quarter No.90B after the death of her
husband, Bhure Lal who ceased to be the employee of M/s Birla
Cotton Spinning and Weaving Mills Ltd. from September, 1985.
(ii) Order dated 3rd August, 2010 passed by the learned ACMM
whereby fine of Rs.37,200/- was imposed on Kusum Lata and she
was directed to hand over the vacant possession of quarter No.90B
on or before 2nd September, 2010 failing which she would undergo
simple imprisonment for two years.
(iii) Order dated 23rd February, 2011 passed by this Court in
Crl.M.C.No.80/2011 in which the mother of respondent no.2
prayed for reduction of fine on the ground that she was ready and
willing to hand over the vacant and peaceful possession of quarter
No.90B in pursuance to which the fine was reduced from
Rs.37,200/- to Rs.10,000/- on her undertaking to hand over the
vacant possession.
(iv) Judgment dated 29th July, 2010 in Texmaco Limited v. Jai
Narain whereby the learned ACMM convicted Jai Narain for
wrongfully withholding quarter No.89B despite cessation of
employment on 30th November, 1996.
(v) Order of sentence dated 3rd September, 2010 in which Jai
Narain undertook to hand over the vacant and peaceful possession
of quarter No.89B to Texmaco by 31st October, 2010.
(vi) Possession letter dated 11th November, 2010 whereby Jai
Narain handed over the vacant and peaceful possession of quarter
No.89B to Texmaco.
(vii) Handwritten letter dated 3rd July, 2011 written by respondent
no.2 in which he stated that he was living in house No.90B which
was vacated under the order of this Court whereupon he kept his
articles in quarter No.89B. Respondent no.2 stated that he has kept
his articles in the verandah and he would vacate the same on 15th
July, 2011.
12. In State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335,
the Supreme Court laid down the following principles for quashing
of the complaint/FIR:-
"(1) Where the allegations made in the first information
report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their
face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima
facie constitute any offence or make out a case against
the accused.
(2) Where the allegations in the first information report
and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not
disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation
by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code
except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview
of Section 155(2) of the Code.
(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the
FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of
the same do not disclose the commission of any offence
and make out a case against the accused.
(4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a
cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable
offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer
without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under
Section 155(2) of the Code.
(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint
are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of
which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion
that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the
accused.
(6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any
of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under
which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the
institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or
where there is a specific provision in the Code or the
concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the
grievance of the aggrieved party.
(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended
with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is
maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for
wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to
spite him due to private and personal grudge."
13. On careful consideration of the material placed before this
Court, this Court is of the view that no offence whatsoever is made
out against the petitioners for committing trespass into quarter
No.89B on 3rd July, 2011 and respondent no.2 has filed an
absolutely false complaint before the Court. This case squarely
covered by the principles laid down in State of Haryana v. Bhajan
Lal (supra) as the allegations made in the complaint as well as the
FIR are absurd and inherently improbable as well as mala fide and
the proceedings appear to have been maliciously instituted with an
ulterior motive. Respondent no.2 could not have been in
possession of the said quarter by any stretch of imagination since
Quarter No.89B was allotted to Jai Narain who ceased to be in
employment on 30th November, 1996 but he failed to return the
possession to the company whereupon complaint under Section
630 of the Companies Act was filed against him which resulted in
the conviction vide judgment dated 29th July, 2010. Jai Narain
gave an undertaking before learned ACMM on 3rd September, 2010
to hand over the vacant and peaceful possession and in pursuance
thereto, he handed over the possession on 11th November, 2010.
Respondent No.2 was never allotted or handed over the possession
of quarter No.89B. However, respondent no.2 appears to have
illegally occupied quarter No.89B which came to the notice of the
petitioner on 3rd July, 2011 when they reported the matter to the
police and respondent no.2 made a statement to the police to hand
over quarter No.89B on 15th July, 2011. Respondent no.2 handed
over the possession to the petitioner on 17th July, 2011. The
documents filed by the petitioners detailed in para 11, more
particularly, the judgment and order mentioned in para 11(iv) and
(v) convicting Jai Narain for wrongfully withholding quarter
No.89B and undertaking of Jai Narain to vacate quarter No.89B
rule out any possibility of there being any truth in the averments
made in the complaint.
14. In the facts and circumstances of this case, this Court is of
the opinion that the complaint No.335/K/2011 as well as FIR
No.81/2012, P.S. Roop Nagar under Sections 380/448/452/506/34
IPC are liable to be quashed.
15. The petitions are allowed and complaint No.335/K/2011 as
well as FIR No.81/2012, P.S. Roop Nagar under Sections
380/448/452/506/34 IPC are hereby quashed.
16. All pending applications are disposed of.
J.R. MIDHA, J.
NOVEMBER 19, 2013
