D. K. Goel v. The State of NCT of Delhi & Anr

1. The order dated 8,2.2005, FtR No.141/2005 dated 5.2.2005 and the charge-sheet dated 20.5.2005 are prayed to be quashed.

2. lt all commenced when respondent No.2 filed a complaint under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal procedure before the Additional chief Metropolitan Magistrate in which order dated 8.2.2005 was passed, which reads as under:- "Present: Complainant in person with counsel Sh.Anil Sethi, Adv. ASI Om Parkash is present in court. He has informed that on the basis of complaint made by the complainant, no case has been registered as yet. r''. CRL.M.C.NO.2044t2007 Page 1 of[4] 2011:DHC:10150 't/\ Lt I have heard the counsel for the complainant and I have gone through cemplaint filed by him. At this stage from the complainant it is difficult to make out that the accused had allegedly committed any offence under section 420 lPC. lt will however be possible to say that there are allegation of commission of offence committed by the accused under section 34L and 506 lpc. Let this complaint be sent to SHO to register a case under such provisions and after the conclusion of the investigation filed the Challan at the earliest. The Investigation Officer however will be at liberty to add or delete any section in case it is so found necessary as the investigation of the case proceeds. A copy of this order be sent to SHO along with copy of complaint and its documents for 13.10.05.,,

3. Based thereon the FIR afore-noted was registered and after investigation the challan was filed in which petitioner was named as the accused.

4. In the challan it has been written that the comprainant, respondent No.2, claimed that he had executed some civil works for M/s.FllrJEE Ltd. to receive payments from M/s.FilTJEE Ltd. of which petitioner is the Managing Director. on 10.12.2004 the complainant went to the office of the petitioner who misbehaved with him, threatened him and pushed him out of the office and told him never to return again. complainant told petitioner that he would keep on making visits till payment was made to him. That after he left the office of the petitioner and was driving his car and proceeding towards Malviya Nagar a few persons intercepted the car, caught him by the collar and pointing a weapon at his neck told him that if he would ever visit the petitioner, he would have to face cRL.M.C.NO.2044t2007 Page? of 4,( rl consequences.

5. Needless to state the offence under Section 341 as also 502 IPC pertains to the incident alleged.

6. Now, the very challan informs that during investigation it surfaced that the company FIITJEE had assigned certain works for re-furbishing the premises of the company to one Virender Kohli and payments to him were made by cheque after deducting tax at source. The complainant had no independent dealing with the company.

7. Thought not expressly stated in the challan, it is clear that the complainant was assigned some work as a sub-contractor by Virender Kohli.

8. Be that as it may, the challan does not indicate anywhere that the complainant had any business dealings with the company. On the contrary it is stated that the company had appointed Virender Kohli as its contractor.

9. At this stage, the criminal complaint filed by the complainant company needs to be highlighted. He writes therein that certain interior decoration works were entrusted to him by the petitioner and that he had to receive a sum of T[1].[5] lacs for works done.

10. I highlight, the police investigation does not reveal any business dealing between M/s.FI|TJEE and the complainant.

11. Now, if the petitioner is not to make any payment to the complainant it does not stem to any logic or reasoning that he would hire musclemen to threaten the complainant, that if he demands payments, harm would be caused to him. I also highlight that in the complaint and even in the challan it has not been mentioned as to what was the weapon with which the complainant was threatened. The use of the vague phrase of being threatened (t I at cRL.M. C.NO.2044 t2007' Page 3 of[4] with a weapon without describing the weapon gives an indication that the complaint is motivated to extract money from the company of the petitioner and the probable reason is that the complainant who was a sub-contractor has not received the payment from the contractor of the company FIITJEE. lf this was so, it is clear that the complainant is arm-twisting the petitioner by misusing the process of law. L[2]. ln the judgment reported as 1992 Supp. Haryana Vs. Bha.ian Lalthe Supreme Court had held that one of the many grounds on which a criminal complaint can be quashed is that the same is actuated in mala fide.

13. Thus, I dispose of the petition quashing FtR No.I4ll2005 dated 5.2.2005 as also the Charge-Sheet dated 20.5.2005. L[4]. No costs. (PRADEEP NANDRA]OG)

JUDGE SEPTEMBER 30, ZOLL rk