Delhi District Court
Kanika Chauhan vs The State Of Nct Of Elhi And Ors on 23 January, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SHRI NAVJEET BUDHIRAJA, ADDITIONAL
SESSIONS JUDGE-02, SOUTH DISTRICT, SAKET COURTS, NEW
DELHI
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION No. 229/2023
CNR NO. DLST01-005644-2023
IN THE MATTER OF:
Kanika Chauhan
D/o Sh. K S Chauhan
D-60, First Floor
Paryavaran Complex
New Delhi-110030
.......Revisionist
Versus
1. The State
Govt of NCT of Delhi
through prosecutor
2. Priyanka Rai
D/o Harender Rai
R/o H. No. S334, Sudhar Camp
Kalkaji, New Delhi-110019
3. Megha Katari
R/o 82, SFS, South Park APTTS OPP
B Block, Kalkaji, New Delhi
........Respondents
DATE OF INSTITUTION : 08.06.2023
DATE OF RESERVING ORDER : 13.01.2025
DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 23.01.2025
DECISION : Dismissed
JUDGMENT
By way of instant revision petition under section 397 Code
Page No. 1 of 15 Digitally signed
NAVJEET by NAVJEET
BUDHIRAJ
BUDHIRAJ Date: 2025.01.23
15:18:27 +0530
of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C), revisionist takes exception to the
order dated 06.05.2023, whereby her application moved under section
156(3) Cr.P.C stood dismissed by Learned Additional Chief
Metropolitan Magistrate, South District, Saket Courts, New Delhi (Ld.
ACMM), in case bearing CT No. 3779/2020 titled as Kanika Chauhan
Vs. Priyanka Rai and Another.
2. In brief, the facts as culled out from the revision petition are
as under:
Complainant (revisionist herein) lodged a complaint dated
11.11.2019 vide diary number 33B in respect of opening a fake account
by Priyanka Rai (respondent no.2 herein) by the user name ‘Pari
Sharma’ containing defamatory, libelous, scandalous contents,
imputations and material against her to tarnish her image and reputation
to the public in general and amongst members of legal community in
particular.
On 13.11.2019, Complainant had filed another complaint in
continuation of the earlier complaint dated 11.11.2019 confirming that
Pari Sharma is same as that accused no.2.
On 31.01.2020, a complaint was further registered vide
daily diary number 50B PS Saket disclosing the commission of various
offences and complainant also brought to the notice of the authority that
respondent no.2 and Megha Katari (respondent no.3 herein) had hatched
a conspiracy to defame and falsely implicate colleague of the
complainant in a heinous offence against the modesty of a woman and
demanded Rs.5 lacs to avoid facing false criminal case.
Digitally
signed by
Page No. 2 of 15 NAVJEET
NAVJEET BUDHIRAJ
BUDHIRAJ Date:
2025.01.23
15:18:32
+0530
Upon failure to meet the abovesaid demand, respondent
no.2 and 3 had executed the threat and got registered FIR no.601/2019
PS Kalkaji on false, frivolous and motivated grounds and basis.
Complainant has relied upon entire contents as uploaded
and associated with the username ‘Pari Sharma’ including friends list
and screenshot of direct messages, transcript of the conversation
between her and respondent no.3 dated 15.11.2019 regarding specific
demand of Rs.15 lacs to prevent the filing of false criminal case and the
law laid down in Lallan Chaudhary Vs. State of Bihar, Ramesh Kumari
Vs. State (NCT of Delhi), Alaque Padamsee Vs Union of India and
Satish Kumar Goel but police did not lodge FIR and that prompted and
constrained the complainant to approach the court by filing the
application under section 156(3) Cr.P.C for direction to the police to
register FIR under section 385/356/388/506/500/34/120B IPC.
Investigating officer (IO) filed status report dated
18.08.2022 wherein it was stated ‘as such the crux of the matter is
creating a fake page on facebook and posting of the messages on the
same, no cognizable offence was made out. Further, the matter of
registration of false case at PS Kalkaji by accused persons to extort
money is also matter of records and specifically related to PS Kalkaji.’
and it was also confirmed by IO that the transcripts of the conversation
between complainant and respondent no.3 are correct and true.
Respondent no.3 in collusion with respondent no.2 had
demanded money to the tune of Rs.15 lacs and non payment thereof led
to registration of false, frivolous and motivated FIR bearing number
601/2019 which was registered at PS Kalkaji.
Page No. 3 of 15
Perusal of the status report dated 17.02.2023 confirms and
corroborates the case of the complainant but in the subsequent report
dated 18.08.2022 filed by the IO he had taken a different stand which
may have weighed the mind of Ld. ACMM in passing the impugned
order contrary to the facts as well as wrongful appreciation of law laid
down in case of Md. Salim (supra).
3. The grounds cited by the revisionist are as under:
Because Ld. ACMM passed the impugned order in utter haste and
wrongly applied the law laid down in Md. Salim Vs. State as it is well
settled legal position that while applying the law or ratio laid down in a
judgment, it is imperative to see the facts and circumstances leading to
the passing of the order/judgment which aspect has been overlooked by
Ld. ACMM.
Because Ld. ACMM further not appreciated the fact that
revisionist has lodged two complaints dated 11.11.2019 and 13.11.2019
that had disclosed cognizable offence.
Because the status report filed by the IO corroborate and support
the case of the revisionist which was neither considered nor dealt by Ld.
ACMM.
Because the impugned order is arbitrary, based on conjectures,
cryptic, surmises, entire merit of the case was not discussed and the
same was passed without due consideration of entire material available
on record.
Because Ld. ACMM failed to appreciate that complaint was filed
on 10.02.2020 prior to the charge sheet in case FIR no.601/19.
Digitally signed by
NAVJEET NAVJEET BUDHIRAJ
BUDHIRAJ 15:18:38
Date: 2025.01.23
+0530Page No. 4 of 15
Because Ld. ACMM has ignored authorities in case-Lalita
Kumari Vs. State of UP, Lallan Chauhdary vs State of Bihar, Ramesh
Kumari Vs. State (NCT of Delhi).
4. Reply to the revision petition was filed on behalf of
respondent no.3, inter alia, with following submissions:
The revision petition filed by revisionist is clearly misconceived,
motivated, untenable and being not at all bonafide on any counts and is
liable to be dismissed with exemplary costs.
The present revision petition fails to disclose any palpable error or
illegality in the impugned order dated 06.05.2023.
It is evident from the complaint that no prima facie cognizable
offence is made out and therefore the present petition deserves to be
dismissed.
The entire complaint is based on an apprehension that ‘if’ the
alleged defamatory material is not deleted from social media, the
revisionist will not be able to walk and perform her work as well as
those would also destroy her political career in the forthcoming election
of Saket Bar Association.
No offence of extortion has been made against the respondent
no.3 as admittedly there is no delivery of the property or valuable
security in terms of section 383 IPC.
The mischief committed by the revisionist is borne out from the
fact that the revisionist has malafidely improved her case which is
evident from the complaints dated 11.11.2019, 13.11.2019, 15.01.2020
and 31.01.2020.
Page No. 5 of 15
Revisionist had filed the complaint bearing number 3509/2020 for
registration of FIR against the respondent no.2 and 3, in counterblast to
original FIR lodged by the respondent no.2 against the revisionist and
her associate namely Md Haris Usmani on allegations of rape and
destroying of evidence.
Revisionist despite being aware of the further investigation
pending in the sessions case has malafidely filed the present petition
seeking for registration of FIR.
5. Ld. Counsel for revisionist and Ld. Counsel for respondent
no.3 advanced the arguments on the petition in detail and sought to file
brief written synopsis. The written synopsis came to be filed on behalf
of the revisionist with some delay, with reliance upon the judgment of
Punjab and Haryana High Court in Simarjeet Singh Vs. State of Punjab,
204 ILR P&H 2021(1) and Shiv Kumar Saxena Vs. State (Govt. of NCT
of Delhi), date of decision 21.01.2025.
6. Revisionist has assailed the impugned order dated
11.11.2022 of then Ld. ACMM who refused to direct the registration of
FIR on the complaint of the revisionist for commission of the offence
under section 385/386/388/506/500/34/120B IPC. Before according any
consideration to the allegations levelled by the revisionist in relation to
these offences, I deem it expedient to reproduce the relevant observation
of Ld. ACMM in the impugned order:
“6. The complainant has averred that
his defence in FIR No. 601/2019 is
not the claim of extortion. However,
the said averment is not credible as
Digitally signed
by NAVJEET
NAVJEET BUDHIRAJ
Page No. 6 of 15 Date:
BUDHIRAJ 2025.01.23
15:18:44
+0530
allegations in the instant case qua the
respondents will effectually
constitute part of the defence of the
complainant in the case before the
Ld. Sessions Court. The Hon’ble
High Court of Delhi in Mohd. Salim
Vs. State [(2010) 175 DLT 473] has
held that it is not proper exercise of
discretion vested in the Magistrate
under Section 156(3) of the Code to
direct the police to register a fresh
FIR on the version of the
complainant at the stage where the
trial against him was pending before
the Court of Sessions…………
7. Without going into the merits of
the allegations leveled by the
complainant and the issue as to
whether prima facie cognizable
offence is made out against the
respondents, this Court is
constrained to dismiss the
application as the trial is underway
before the Ld. Sessions Court and
the averments in the instant
application does effectually
constitute defense of the
complainant in the sessions case
which is sub-judice. In view of the
above, the present application under
Section 156(3) of the Code is
dismissed.”
7. It is manifest from the aforesaid that the Ld. ACMM in
paragraph 7 of the impugned order reflected having not delving into the
merit of the allegations levelled by the revisionist on the bedrock of the
proceeding being underway before Ld. Sessions Court in case FIR
no.601/2019, PS Kalkaji.
8. In the prayer clause of the present revision petition,
Digitally
signed by
NAVJEET
Page No. 7 of 15 NAVJEET BUDHIRAJ
BUDHIRAJ Date:
2025.01.23
15:18:49
+0530
revisionist has sought to set aside the said impugned order and direct to
register FIR against respondent no.2 and 3. Later, during arguments,
revisionist also prayed for remanding back the original complaint to the
court of Ld. ACMM as the impugned order was not passed on merits of
the complaint.
9. No doubt, the impugned order reflects that Ld. ACMM did
not dwell upon the merits of the allegations levelled in the complaint for
the reasons mentioned therein but this court is not precluded from
examining the merits of the allegations levelled by the revisionist
instead of taking recourse of remanding back the matter. In appropriate
cases, where the allegations are found to have some spine and despite
which the concerned magistrate fails to pass a reasoned order, in that
case, the apposite course of action in the revision jurisdiction would be
to remand back the matter with directions to the concerned magistrate to
hear the matter afresh and to support its order by way of sufficient
reasoning, but where the revisional court, on meditating the record of
the revision and the original complaint and other documents, finds that
the exercise of remanding back the matter is not warranted in the light
of the lackluster case of the complainant, the revisional court can deal
with the merits of the case itself.
10. Before embarking upon the analysis of the allegations, let
us have a glance at the action taken report filed by the police in the court
of Ld. ACMM. In the action taken report filed by SI Dinesh Kumar PS
Saket, Delhi dated 20.12.2022 before the then Ld. ACMM has found
Digitally signed
Page No. 8 of 15
by NAVJEET
NAVJEET BUDHIRAJ
Date:
BUDHIRAJ 2025.01.23
15:18:54
+0530
and narrated as under:
“Further, as far as matter of
registration of false case at PS
Kalkaji vide FIR No.601/19 is
concerned, it is submitted that the
same is also not subjected to be
acted by the PS Kalkaji and is a
matter of record. Moreover, inquiry
with regard to the allegations of
demanding extortion money from
the complainant by the alleged
Megha Katari and Priyanka Rai has
also been conducted and during the
course of enquiry the complainant in
response to the notice U/s 91 Cr.P.C
the complainant has provided the
audio clip of the conversation made
between her and alleged Megha
Katari. The audio clip provided by
the complainant is pertaining to the
conversation made between her and
alleged Megha Katari on 15.11.2019
and the same were specifically heard
which corroborated the
version/allegations of the
complainant about demanding
money of Rs 15 lacs by the alleged
Priyanka Rai through Megha Katari
for not filing the rape case as
negotiate amount.
The allegations of defaming on
Facebook are non-cognizable
offence. Further, the matter of
registration of false case at PS
Kalkaji by accused persons to extort
money is also matter of records and
specifically related to PS Kalkaji and
the chargesheet has already been
filed of the said case. However, with
regard to the allegations levelled by
the complainant regarding
demanding extortion money, it is
submitted that the conversation
provided by the complainant werePage No. 9 of 15 Digitally
signed by
NAVJEET
NAVJEET BUDHIRAJ
BUDHIRAJ Date:
2025.01.23
15:18:57
+0530
perused and audio clips were also
listened and found corroborated the
same and the veracity of the same is
a matter of investigation.”
11. Apparently, the original complaint filed before the then Ld.
ACMM and before this court, revisionist has levelled allegations
pertaining to making of false account in the name of ‘Pari Sharma’ on
social media, posting defamatory contents/messages therein and
defamation on social media relating to the revisionist and of extorting
money to the tune of Rs.15 lacs. The allegations of making of false
account on social media, posting of defamatory contents and criminal
intimidation would prima facie constitute offence under section 463
IPC, 500 IPC and 506 IPC which are non-cognizable in nature and in
respect of which, revisionist is at liberty to pursue her remedies by filing
a private complaint against the respondents. The law does not permit
registration of the FIR under non-cognizable offence and, thus, no
direction can be issued by the court by way of application under section
156(3) Cr.P.C to conduct investigation in the allegations pertaining to
non-cognizable offence.
12. In the written synopsis, revisionist has invoked plethora of
sections 120B/ 420/ 468/ 411/ 378/ 409/ 463/ 465/ 425/ 426/
468/469/425/426/499/500/509/34 IPC and section 65 and 66 of IT Act
against the respondents, but in the original complaint as well as the
present revision petition fail to make out as to how these offences are
prima facie attracted. It was incumbent upon the revisionist to have put
forth in detail as to how the essential ingredient of the offences invoked
Digitally signed
NAVJEET by NAVJEET
BUDHIRAJ
Page No. 10 of 15 BUDHIRAJ Date: 2025.01.23
15:19:01 +0530
are made out. Broadly speaking, as already noted above, the alleged
making of an account and defamatory contents purportedly written by
the respondent no.2 therein may constitute a non cognizable offence for
which revisionist is at liberty to take appropriate action as enunciated
under the law.
13. Revisionist has also invoked section 65 and 66 of
Information Technology Act, which for reference, are reproduced herein
under:
“65. Tampering with computer
source documents.-
Whoever knowingly or intentionally
conceals, destroys or alters or
intentionally or knowingly causes
another to conceal, destroy, or alter
any computer source code used for a
computer, computer programme,
computer system or computer
network, when the computer source
code is required to be kept or
maintained by law for the time being
in force, shall be punishable with
imprisonment up to three years, or
with fine which may extend up to
two lakh rupees, or with both.
66. Computer related offences. –
If any person, dishonestly or
fraudulently, does any act referred to
in section 43, he shall be punishable
with imprisonment for a term which
may extend to three years or with
fine which may extend to five lakh
rupees or with both.”
14. Clearly, none of the aforesaid sections of the IT Act is made
Digitally
signed by
NAVJEET
NAVJEET BUDHIRAJ
BUDHIRAJ Date:
2025.01.23
Page No. 11 of 15 15:19:05
+0530
out on the facts of the present complaint as there is no allegation of
tampering or damage being done with any computer system or of any
hacking. Also, the argument that respondent no.2 has already
acknowledged having created a fake ID by the name of Pari Sharma, the
same would also fall within the realm of non-cognizable offence in
respect of which no action by way of order under section 156(3) Cr.P.C
is warranted.
15. In so far as allegation of extortion is concerned, it is the
assertion of the revisionist that respondents extorted money from the
revisionist and on non payment of the same, a false case bearing FIR
no.601/2019 was got registered against the revisionist and other persons.
The relevant extract of transcript in this regard is specified in paragraph
2(6) of the revision, which for reference, is reproduced as under:
“MEGHA KATARI: 5 SAAL
PEHLE INHONE APNI BADI BETI
KI SHADIKARI THI JISME
INHONE 7 LAKH RUPEE
KHARCHEY THEY
KANIKA CHAUHAN: JI JI
MEGHA KATARI: AB KEHTI
HAIN 7 SAAL MAIN MEHNGAI
BADH GAI HAI
KANIKA CHAUHAN : JI JI
MEGHA KATARI: AB AAP APNE
AAP SOCH KAR DEKH LO KI
KITNE MILNE CHAHYE MAINE
KAHA JI AAP APNI DEMAND
BATAO APNE MUNH SE
KANIKA CHAUHAN: HMMM
MEGHA KATARI : TO INK
EKEHNA THA KI MUJHE 15 SE 1
RUPIYA KAM NAHI CAHYE
KANIKA CHAUHAN : KITNAPage No. 12 of 15
Digitally signed
NAVJEET by NAVJEET
BUDHIRAJ
BUDHIRAJ Date: 2025.01.23
15:19:09 +0530
MEGHA KATARI : FIFTEEN SE
EK RUPYA KAM NAHI CAHYE
KANIKA CHAUHAN : ACHA 15
LACKS
MEGHA KATARI : HAAN JI
KANIKA CHAUHAN : ACHA
ACHA”
16. It is also asserted on behalf of the revisionist that the IO in
the action taken report dated 20.12.2022 has affirmed that the
allegations of the offence of extortion are prima facie made out. In
regard to this, it is observed that the court is not bound to blindly act
upon the action taken report and has to independently assess the
allegations to find out the commission of any cognizable offence
warranting directions for investigation through the agency of the police.
17. Before examining the allegations in the light of the above
material, let us refer herein the provisions of section 385, 386 and 388
IPC. The definition of extortion can be from section 383 of IPC as
“Whoever intentionally puts any person in fear of any injury to that
person, or to any other, and thereby dishonestly induces the person so
put in fear to deliver to any person any property or valuable security, or
anything signed or sealed which may be converted into a valuable
security, commits ”extortion”.
18. In the case in hand, there is no such averment on the part of
the revisionist that the sum of Rs.15 lacs as allegedly demanded from
her was paid to the respondents. Delivery of the property or valuable
security is one of the pre-requisite of the commission of the offence of
Digitally signed
by NAVJEET
NAVJEET BUDHIRAJ
Page No. 13 of 15 BUDHIRAJ Date:
2025.01.23
15:19:13
+0530
extortion, which is not complied with in the present case. Even if, the
present case is seen in the context of the alleged commission of attempt
to extort money, still I am unable to come to the conclusion that the
allegations are sufficient to bring the case within the realm of ‘attempt to
commit extortion’. No doubt, the alleged transcript indicates some kind
of conversation between the parties in relation to striking a deal of some
amount in lieu of non filing of a complaint, however, there is no such
material indicating that any threat of the prosecution was being extended
to the revisionist so as to bring the case within the mischief of the
offence of extortion or attempt to extort. No doubt in the offences which
are of heinous nature, any kind of settlement between the parties to
suppress the prosecution would be morally and legally unsustainable,
but it is for the victim of a particular case to enforce her rights by taking
recourse to law or to settle it without resorting to the prescribed penal
legislation.
19. In the case in hand, the factual position sought to be put
forth by way of the complaint as well as the present revision petition is
that respondent no.2 had sought to strike a settlement with the
revisionist and the other alleged person by asking for some
consideration but these circumstances are not sufficient enough to fulfill
the ingredients as enunciated for the offence of extortion or attempt to
extort or other offences related to extortion.
20. The judgments relied upon by the revisionist are mainly on
the legal position where for commission of the cognizable offence,
Digitally
signed by
Page No. 14 of 15 NAVJEET
BUDHIRAJ
NAVJEET
BUDHIRAJ
Date:
2025.01.23
15:19:18
+0530
direction can be issued to the police to conduct investigation which in
the instant case is not warranted in view of the foregoing discussion.
21. In the result, the present revision petition is found to be
bereft of merit and is dismissed. TCR be sent back to Ld. ACMM along
with copy of this judgment. Revision file be consigned to Record Room
after due compliance. Digitally signed
by NAVJEET
NAVJEET BUDHIRAJ
BUDHIRAJ Date:
2025.01.23
15:19:23 +0530Announced in the open (NAVJEET BUDHIRAJA)
Court on 23.01.2025 Additional Sessions Judge-02,
South, Saket Courts, New Delhi
23.01.2025Page No. 15 of 15
[ad_1]
Source link