9911796707
TMI Blog1999 (2) TMI 728X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... -1/16, alviya Nagar, New Delhi, formerly a single storeyed house. She had sent a complaint dated 2.10.92 to the Commissioner of Police and others on which FIR No. 516/92 was registered at Police Station Malviya Nagar, New Delhi on 2.11.1992 under Sections 420/468/471/342/165-B;IPC and after completing investigation a report under Section 173 of the Code was submitted to the effect that a case for offences under Sections 420/468/471/342 IPC is made out against Hardeep Singh (A-1), Raj Kumar Sharma (A-2) who were challaned, and Ashok Kaushik, Padam Singh, Ram Sarup and Nikhilesh Kumar Sharma @ Tara were shown in Column 2. 4. Ram Sarup and Padam Singh had not been arrested whereas the petitioner was on interim anticipatory bail under the order of this Court. A supplementary challan was filed against him, cognizance of which was taken on 1.2.1994. 5. In the aforesaid complaint dated 2.10.92 it is alleged that the aforesaid property was a single storey house and that the complainant Smt. Sushila Wadhwa had entered into an agreement with Hardeep Singh (A-1) in December, 1990 for raising construction of basement, ground floor, first floor and second floor whereby the complainant was to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion dated 11.1.1995 was filed for summoning four persons, namely, Suresh Bhatia, J.K. Ahuja, Ramesh Bhatia and ASI Ramesh Chand Dixit to examine them. These applications have been rejected by the learned M.M. on 21.2.1995 holding that the examination of these witnesses prior to framing of the charge would not serve the ends of justice. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has contended that the FIR/complaint can be dismissed/quashed if no case is made out or its continuance will amount to misuse of the process of the Court causing unnecessary harassment to the accused; that the Court is competent and rather should exercise power under Sections 91 and 294 of the Code where production of document or examination of witness(s), is necessary to show that no charge could be framed in the facts and circumstances if such documents or statements of witnesses sought to be examined are considered. 8. Section 91 of the Code empowers the Court to summon a person in whose possession or power a document is believed to be, requiring him to produce it where the production of such document is necessary or desirable for the purposes of any i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Factory Phone No. 7243124 F-I-U-88, Pritampura, Delhi." 13. The statement made on 21.6.92 by Smt. Sushila Wadhwa, complainant to the ASI Ramesh Dixit on translation reads as under :- "I, Smt. Sushila Wadhwa wife of Shri Balkishan Wadhwa R/o Ward No. 3-458/B.5-13, Mahrauli, swear in the name of God and state that I have sold my house E/1/16, Malviya Nagar, New Delhi, G/F(Ground Floor), of my own free will and for meeting my financial needs, to Shri Ashok Kaushik, R/o Jia Sarai, New Delhi. Necessary documents, such as, agreement, power of attorney etc. have been executed and after executing the same, consent too has been given. I have, after vacating this house of my own free volition, handed over its possession peacefully to Shri Ashok Kaushik in the morning of 6.1992 and I have no complaint/grouse against Ashok ji and I am residing in this house of my son-in-law's nephew, Padam Singh, on rent of my own volition. My wish is to have my own house soon in Vasant Kunj. Suresh Bhatia, to whom my niece (brother's daughter) is wedded, met me in March, 1992. I do not know whether he had lodged any bad report in the Police Station regarding my abduction and murder. Wh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er). On seeing me, she apprised me of her difficulties. I took her to my house situated at Pritampura as per her desire. I enquired into all the circumstances from her in the presence of my father-in-law and Ramesh Kumar Bhatia, and on 22.06.92, I narrated the same at police station Malviya Nagar, whereon you (police) summoned Ashok Kaushik, Dealer Raj Sharma and Padam Singh and the truth was highlighted. Whereupon Ashok Kaushik disclosed that he had given a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- to the mother and the balance amount was to be paid to her by him. He also produced written documents in this regard there which were personally perused by me and today you (police) have got deposited the said amount by Ashok Kaushik in the account of the mother bearing Account No. 6504, Punjab National Bank, Malviya Nagar. Now, the mother is going with me to my residence situated at Pritampura, voluntarily and of her own volition. Now, I have got no complaint against anyone. I have heard the statement and it is correct. Sd/- SURESH BHATIA (in English) Dt. 24.06.92" 15. Statement of Shri J.K. Ahuja dated 24.6.1992 which has been filed in this Court Along with the affidavit of ASI Ramesh Dixit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1992. 7. That in the Police Station, Nikhlesh Kumar Sharma @ Tara and Ashok Kaushik agreed to pay Rs. 7.5 lacs to me against the sale consideration of ground floor and got executed a document for the sale of ground floor in total consideration of Rs. 7.5 lac out of which he has deposited Rs. 5 lac in my saving account in Punjab National Bank, Malviya Nagar and promise to pay Rs. 2.5 lac with 45 days, but have not paid the said amount, so far." 18. The report lodged by Shri Suresh Bhatia with the police on 19.6.1992 was about the disappearance of the complainant and her goods from ground floor of the house in question. The statements made by Suresh Bhatia, J.K. Ahuja and the affidavit dated 24.6.1992 of the complainant Smt. Sushila Bhatia reproduced above are very relevant for consideration of the question whether the complainant was abducted in June, 1992 and whether the agreement for sale of ground floor of the house was got signed from her forcibly for deciding the question whether any and if so what charge(s) could be framed. Either these documents could be taken into consideration on their face value or if any doubt is entertained on their uineness/authenticity in that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s which are wholly irrelevant or inadmissible; and (4) where the complaint suffers from fundamental legal defects, such as, want of sanction, or absence of a complaint by legally competent authority and the like. The cases mentioned by us are purely illustrative and provide sufficient guidelines to indicate contingencies where the High court can quash proceedings." 21. In Madhavrao Jiwaji Rao Scindia and Another Vs. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre and others AIR 1988 SC 709, in para 7 also it has been stated as under :- "The legal position is well-settled that when a prosecution at the initial stage is asked to be quashed, the test to be applied by the Court is as to whether the uncontroverted allegations as made prima facie establish the offence. It is also for the Court to take into consideration any special features which appear in a particular case to consider whether it is expedient and in the interest of justice to permit a prosecution to continue. This is so on the basis that the Court cannot be utilised for any oblique purpose and where in the opinion of the Court chances of an ultimate conviction are bleak and, Therefore, no useful purpose is likely to be s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
