Md Azam Ansari vs State Of Nct Of Delhi
2021 Latest Caselaw 1024 Del

$~31
*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
                                  Date of decision: March 25, 2021

+      CRL.REV.P. 154/2021 & Crl.M.As. 5141-42/2021

       MD AZAM ANSARI                            ..... Petitioner
                   Through:           Md. Azam Ansari &
                                      Md. Asthaq Ansari,
                                      Advocates
                         Versus

       STATE OF NCT OF DELHI                       ..... Respondent
                     Through:         Mr. Panna Lal Sharma,
                                      Additional Public Prosecutor
                                      for State with SI Manish
       CORAM:
       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KUMAR KAIT

                      JUDGMENT (ORAL)

%

1. Petitioner is aggrieved of order dated 08.03.2021 passed by

learned Metropolitan Magistrate (MM), vide which petitioner's

application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. has been dismissed. By

this petition, petitioner is seeking quashing of the aforesaid order

while seeking a direction to SHO police station Jamia Nagar, Delhi

to register an FIR on the basis of police complaint for the offences

under Sections 294/341/342/499/500/ 504/506/34 IPC.

2. Notice issued.

3. Mr. Panna Lal Sharma, Additional Public Prosecutor for

State, accepts notice.

4. The grounds putforth in the present petition are that as per the

contents of the complaint before the learned MM, a prima facie case

of criminal offences punishable under Sections 294/341/342/

499/500/504/506/34 IPC are made out against the persons, namely,

Sahil and Rehana and the matter needs investigation by the police

and that for this purpose, registration of FIR is mandatory.

5. Pertinently, petitioner had given a police complaint dated

29.12.2020, at police station Jamia Nagar, Delhi with regard to an

incident which allegedly took place on 24.12.2020. It is stated in the

complaint that on 24.12.2020, accused Sahil and Rihana Begum

along with another lady Gulnaz had suddenly visited his house,

though he never liked meeting his clients at the residence but since

they had visited his house for the first time, he attended them but

warned not to visit his house again. Petitioner had sent a letter to the

Mr. Aftab Ali, Advocate representing the accused on the very next

day requesting him to direct his clients to not visit his house but

again on 29.12.2020, accused Sahil and Rihana Begum visited his

house and started quarelling with him and shouting using obscene

words, as a result of which large public, including neigbours of

petitioner, gathered at the entrance of the building of his house.

Petitioner has alleged that the accused persons used words such like

"tum bahut baimaan vakil ho" and "abhi tere bare mein masjid me

elaan karege". Both the accused insisted petitioner to withdraw the

case from the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Petitioner has alleged that

the accused persons had wrongfully restrained him in the street for

30 minutes and prevented him from entering the building.

6. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that lodging of just

NCR in the present case by the police is not enough, both on facts

and law. He stated that out of the afore-noted offences, Sections

294/341/34 IPC are cognizable offence and the police is bound to

register an FIR. To strengthen his arguments, learned counsel relied

upon decision of Constitution Bench in Lalita Kumari Vs. Govt. of

U.P. (2014) 2 SCC 1.

7. Learned counsel submits that at the time of taking cognizance

of the offence or at the time of framing of charge, evidence is not

required to be gone into minutely nor strict implementation of law

has to be done and rejection of petitioner's complaint at the initial

stage itself is bad in law. He also submitted that while rejecting to

invoke Section 294 IPC, the trial court has misdirected itself in

explaining the meaning of obscenity, which is not defined in IPC

and it has caused great prejudice to the petitioner, and therefore, the

impugned order deserves to be set aside.

8. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for

State has supported the impugned order and he submits that it does

not suffer from any infirmity or illegality and, therefore, this petition

is liable to be rejected.

9. I have heard rival contentions raised by counsel representing

both the sides and gone through the impugned order and material

placed on record.

10. It finds mentioned in the impugned order that petitioner has

alleged that the accused persons have uttered the words that

"petitioner is a dishonest lawyer" and according to petitioner, the

said words are covered within the ambit of Section 294 IPC,

however, the learned trial court did not find to be in agreement with

this contention and observed that the term 'obscene' has not been

defined in IPC and the same has been explained to mean and include

in a number of cases which are offensive to chastity or modesty and

something which suggest lustful, impure, indecent and lewd ideas.

The learned trial court also observed that words allegedly spoken by

the accused, though could be considered to be offensive, but not

covered under the scope and ambit of obscenity and held that

commission of offence under Section 294 IPC is not made out.

11. With regard to petitioner's allegation, that he was illegally

wrongfully restrained in the street for 30 minutes by the accused

person, the court below has observed that no such allegation was

raised by the petitioner in his initial complaint nor in the complaint

under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and also that petitioner has failed to

persuade the court as to how and in what manner he was restrained

and prevented from entering into the building.

12. Besides, impugned order also notes the ratio laid down by the

Hon'ble Supreme Court in Lalita Kumari (Supra), relied upon by

counsel for the petitioner.

13. In the light of above and having regard to the submissions

advanced by learned counsel for the parties, I find force in the

findings returned by the trial court, as the same is based upon

reasoning of facts and law. Moreover, learned trial court has only

dismissed petitioner's application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and

has taken cognizance for the offence under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and

has not closed his right to lead evidence and establish his case.

14. Finding no merit in this petition, the same is dismissed.

Pending application are also disposed of as infructuous.

(SURESH KUMAR KAIT) JUDGE MARCH 25, 2021 r