Full Judgment Text
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.REV.P. 224/2014
th
Date of Decision: July 29 , 2016
STATE ..... Petitioner
Through Mr.Amit Chadha, APP for the State.
versus
S B YADAV ..... Respondent
Through Ms.Anupriya Yadav, Adv.
AND
+ W.P.(CRL) 781/2014
HC DILIP SINGH CHAUHAN ..... Petitioner
Through Mr.Pawan Sharma, Adv. with
Ms.Anupriya Yadav, Adv.
versus
THE STATE ..... Respondent
Through Mr.Rajesh Mahajan, ASC with
Mr.Amit Chadha, APP for the State &
Ms.Parul Jamwal, Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.TEJI
P.S.TEJI, J.
1. By this commmon judgment, I shall be disposing of two
matters – Crl.Revision Petition No.224/2014 & W.P.(Crl.)
No.781/2014.
W.P.(Crl.) No.781/14 & Crl.Revision P.No.224/14 Page 1 of 8
2. The Crl.Revision No.224/2014 has been filed by the State
seeking to set aside order dated 11.02.2014 passed by the
Ld.Special Judge discharing the petitioner/S.B.Yadav while
W.P.(Crl.) No.781/2014 has been filed by one of the co-accused
HC Dilip Singh Chauhan.
3. The facts of the case in a nutshell are that on 17.10.2011
Sh.Naresh Gupta lodged a complaint wherein he stated that he
had been residing at C-1/23, Phase-2, Ashok Vihar, Delhi since
last 25 years. On 02.02.2009, his sister-in-law Neelam (wife of
his younger brother Naresh Gupta) was admitted at Parnami
Clinic and Ortho Joint Replacement Centre’ as she had broken
her hipbone after slipping in the bath room. A girl namely
Rukhsar was working as a helper in this hopsital whose work
was quite good. After discharging Neelam from the hospital,
doctors advised her to take rest for 3-4 months. So, after
negotiating with Rukhsar’s mother Smt.Ansaro Khatoon,
Rukhsar was hired as a domestic help on a monthly salary of
Rs.5,000/-. She worked till July, 2009. During this while, she
got friendly with another domestic help Niranjan Sardar which
was disliked by house mates and Rukhsar’s mother was called
and facts were told to her. After clearance of accounts, Rukhsar
was sent back with her mother Ansaro. Later, SI Shri Bhagwan
of PS Jahangir Puri came to Naresh Gupta and told that Rukhsar
had run away from her house and her mother had got registered
FIR No.540/2009, Police Station: Jahangir Puri. On
15.07.2010, HC Dilip Singh Chauhan sent a notice to Naresh
W.P.(Crl.) No.781/14 & Crl.Revision P.No.224/14 Page 2 of 8
Gupta for joining the investigation on 19.07.2010. But on
16.07.2010, police reached his house to arrest him and told that
Rukhsar in her statement had named Naresh Gupta for
committing gang rape on her. Later, Naresh Gupta along with
his brother in law met the SHO concerned and HC Dilip Singh
Chauhan who said that the matter can be patched up whereafter
SHO left the room. Later in a statement made before ACP
Vigilance, Naresh Gupta stated that HC Dilip Singh Chauhan
had taken Rs.20,000/- and Rs.2,50,000/- in cash from his
brother-in-law Ratan Lal. Two days later, a meeting was
arranged between the girl, her mother and Ratan Lal and in the
presence of SHO S.B.Yadav, HC Dilip Singh Chauhan had
taken Rs.3,00,000/- in cash. After he was called to police
station upon serving a notice under Section 160 Cr.P.C., and
Rs.50,000/- in cash was taken from him and Dilip Singh said
that SHO was demanding more money. It is stated that SHO
S.B.Yadav and HC Dilip Singh had extorted a sum of
Rs.7,00,000/- in cash. This moneyhad been given to save his
honor. Based on the enquiry report of vigilance, orders of senior
officers and given statements, a case under Sections 7,8, 13 of
Prevention of Corruption Act and under Sections 384/201/120-
B IPC was registered in PS: Jahangir Puri.
4. During investigation, IO recorded the statements of
Sh.Rattan Lal, Sh.Uma Shanker, Sh.Anil Gupta and Sh.Naresh
Gupta who all stated that the IO had demanded bribe from them.
Rattan Lal also produced an audio CD with respect to his
W.P.(Crl.) No.781/14 & Crl.Revision P.No.224/14 Page 3 of 8
conversation with Ansaro Begum where she accepted that HC
Dilip Singh Chuahan had taken money from Rattan Lal and that
Rs.3,00,000/- was given to Dilip Singh in front of the SHO.
5. Rattan Lal in his statement stated that on 16.07.2010 HC
Dilip Singh Chauhan had got changed five tyres of a Santro Car
belonging to a police officer whose payment was given by him
and Naresh Gupta. HC Dilip Singh Chauhan along with Bal
Bahadur, driver of Naresh Gupta, had gone to Ashok Vihar,
Phase-I for getting the tyres of the car changed bearing
registration No.DL 4C AG 1568. Rattan Lal also presented a
copy of the bill. HC Dilip Singh Chauhan later arrested Anil
Gupta and demanded Rs.25,000/- in lieu of his release. On non
payment of the same, he arrested Anil Gupta on 06.08.2010 and
sent him to jail while photos of marriage of Anil Gupta with
Rukhsar had been produced to HC Dilip Singh Chauhan.
6. On 27.07.2010, Dilip Chauhan demanded delivery of
wheat, rice and grams of value around 10-12 thousand at his
house in Model Town, Delhi. On 27.04.2012 and 03.05.2012,
Inspector S.B.Yadav and HC Dilip Singh Chauhan, surrendered
before the court. They were arrested and taken in police
custody.
7. During investigation, it was revealed that on 16.07.2010
Lal Bahadur, driver of Naresh Gupta, accompanied HC Dilip
Singh Chauhan to Roop Nagar to pick a car from a house which
belonged to ACP Jai Bhagwan and that car was found registered
in the name of Ved Parkash, brother of ACP Jai Bhagwan,
W.P.(Crl.) No.781/14 & Crl.Revision P.No.224/14 Page 4 of 8
ACP, Jahangirpuri. Requisite sanction to prosecute the accused
was obtained and they were charge sheeted under Sections 7,
13(i)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act and under Sections
384/201/120B IPC.
8. After hearing the rival contention, the Trial Court held
that the meeting of minds of two or more persons for doing or
causing to be done an illegal act or an act by illegal means is a
sine qua non for the offence of criminal conspiracy and in the
instant case there was nothing on record to establish that there
was prior meeting of mind of accused S.B.Yadav and HC Dilip
Singh Chauhan whereby they hatched a criminal conspiracy in
order to extract bribe from the complainant and his brother-in-
law Ratan Lal and thus petitioner/accused S.B.Yadav was
discharged. However, concerning the accused Dilip Singh
Chauhan, the Trial Court held that the petitioner/accused Dilip
Singh Chauhan deserves to be charged as there was adequate
material on record to prima facie establish a case U/S 7 and 13
(2) r/w Section 13 (1) (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988
against him.
9. The learned counsel for the petitioner/HC Dilip Singh
Chauhan has taken the grounds in the petition that the
complaint in question was filed by the complainant who is an
accused in a rape case with a view to settle his score and the
refusal of the petitioner to entertain the request of his senior
officers to shield accused Naresh Gupta. The co-accused
S.B.Yadav has been discharged and the petitioner is also on
W.P.(Crl.) No.781/14 & Crl.Revision P.No.224/14 Page 5 of 8
the same footing and deserves parity. The complaint in
question is a counter blast against the fair investigation
conducted by the petitioner in FIR No.540/2009, PS: Jahangir
Puri. The sanction obtained is contrary to the provisions of
Section 19(2) of the PC Act and the Joint Commissioner of
Police who granted sanction was lacking jurisdiction. There
were no allegations of demand and acceptance of bribe by the
petitioner in the complaint.
10. The grounds taken by the State in their revision petition
against the discharge of the accused/S.B.Yadav are that there
are specific allegations against him in the complaint which
prima facie discloses the commission of offence; the Trial
Court was not required to analyze the evidence in detail at the
time of framing charge; there is material on record that both
the accused hatched a criminal conspiracy to extract bribe from
the complainant and Rs.3,00,000/- were given in the presence
of accused S.B.Yadav but despite the same, he did not take any
action against accused HC Dilip Singh Chauhan which shows
criminal conspiracy among the accused persons. The learned
APP in support of his case has relied upon the judgment in
case of Yogesh @ Sachin Jagdish Joshi v. State of
Maharashtra; 2008 (6) Scale 469 and State of Maharashtra
v. Priya Sharan Maharaj; 1997 (4) SCC 393 .
11. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and
perused the record.
12. The record reveals that the complainant Naresh Gupta in
W.P.(Crl.) No.781/14 & Crl.Revision P.No.224/14 Page 6 of 8
his statement had stated that both the accused had demanded
money for solving the case which was registered against the
complainant as the case was a big one. The complainant
authorized his brother-in-law Rattan Lal to handle the
payments to be made to the accused persons. Rattan Lal in his
statement had stated that on different occasions he paid
different amounts to the accused HC Dilip Singh Chauhan. He
also stated that on asking of accused Dilip Singh Chauhan he
got replaced five tyres of a car. He specifically stated that on
16.07.2010 he had paid Rs.20,000/- to accused HC Dilip Singh
Chauhan and subsequently he also paid a sum of Rs.2.5 lakhs.
He further paid Rs.3 lakhs to accused HC Dilip Singh Chauhan
for giving the same to the mother of the prosecutrix.
Subsequently also, he made various payments to accused HC
Dilip Singh Chauhan and also made payments with regard to
items purchased for him.
13. As per the statement of the complainant and his brother
in law Rattan Lal, all the demands of money and articles were
made by accused HC Dilip Singh Chauhan. There is no
allegation in any of the statements of these witnesses that
accused Inspector S.B.Yadav had ever demanded any money
from them or received anything in cash or kind from them.
14. It is a settled law that for constituting a criminal
conspiracy, prior meeting of minds is a sine qua non, but in the
present case, the ingredients of constituting criminal
conspiracy are missing. There is no material on record to
W.P.(Crl.) No.781/14 & Crl.Revision P.No.224/14 Page 7 of 8
show that both the accused persons had hatched any criminal
conspiracy either to demand illegal gratification or acceptance
of any money from the complainant’s side for showing any
favour or disfavour in the case lodged by the complainant
Naresh Gupta. In the absence of any material against accused
S.B.Yadav, it cannot be said that case for framing charge was
made out against him.
15. On the other hand, there are specific allegations and
material against accused HC Dilip Singh Chauhan that he
demanded illegal gratification and accepted the same from
Rattan Lal for facilitating the complainant Naresh Gupta in the
rape case in which accused HC Dilip Singh Chauhan was the
IO. So, prima facie, there was sufficient material against him
to frame charge.
16. In view of above discussion, this Court is of the
considered opinion that there is no any infirmity or illegality in
the impugned order dated 11.02.2014 to frame charge against
accused HC Dilip Singh Chauhan and to discharge accused
S.B.Yadav.
17. Both the petitions are accordingly dismissed.
(P.S.TEJI)
JUDGE
JULY 29, 2016
dm/dd
W.P.(Crl.) No.781/14 & Crl.Revision P.No.224/14 Page 8 of 8
+ CRL.REV.P. 224/2014
th
Date of Decision: July 29 , 2016
STATE ..... Petitioner
Through Mr.Amit Chadha, APP for the State.
versus
S B YADAV ..... Respondent
Through Ms.Anupriya Yadav, Adv.
AND
+ W.P.(CRL) 781/2014
HC DILIP SINGH CHAUHAN ..... Petitioner
Through Mr.Pawan Sharma, Adv. with
Ms.Anupriya Yadav, Adv.
versus
THE STATE ..... Respondent
Through Mr.Rajesh Mahajan, ASC with
Mr.Amit Chadha, APP for the State &
Ms.Parul Jamwal, Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.TEJI
P.S.TEJI, J.
1. By this commmon judgment, I shall be disposing of two
matters – Crl.Revision Petition No.224/2014 & W.P.(Crl.)
No.781/2014.
W.P.(Crl.) No.781/14 & Crl.Revision P.No.224/14 Page 1 of 8
2. The Crl.Revision No.224/2014 has been filed by the State
seeking to set aside order dated 11.02.2014 passed by the
Ld.Special Judge discharing the petitioner/S.B.Yadav while
W.P.(Crl.) No.781/2014 has been filed by one of the co-accused
HC Dilip Singh Chauhan.
3. The facts of the case in a nutshell are that on 17.10.2011
Sh.Naresh Gupta lodged a complaint wherein he stated that he
had been residing at C-1/23, Phase-2, Ashok Vihar, Delhi since
last 25 years. On 02.02.2009, his sister-in-law Neelam (wife of
his younger brother Naresh Gupta) was admitted at Parnami
Clinic and Ortho Joint Replacement Centre’ as she had broken
her hipbone after slipping in the bath room. A girl namely
Rukhsar was working as a helper in this hopsital whose work
was quite good. After discharging Neelam from the hospital,
doctors advised her to take rest for 3-4 months. So, after
negotiating with Rukhsar’s mother Smt.Ansaro Khatoon,
Rukhsar was hired as a domestic help on a monthly salary of
Rs.5,000/-. She worked till July, 2009. During this while, she
got friendly with another domestic help Niranjan Sardar which
was disliked by house mates and Rukhsar’s mother was called
and facts were told to her. After clearance of accounts, Rukhsar
was sent back with her mother Ansaro. Later, SI Shri Bhagwan
of PS Jahangir Puri came to Naresh Gupta and told that Rukhsar
had run away from her house and her mother had got registered
FIR No.540/2009, Police Station: Jahangir Puri. On
15.07.2010, HC Dilip Singh Chauhan sent a notice to Naresh
W.P.(Crl.) No.781/14 & Crl.Revision P.No.224/14 Page 2 of 8
Gupta for joining the investigation on 19.07.2010. But on
16.07.2010, police reached his house to arrest him and told that
Rukhsar in her statement had named Naresh Gupta for
committing gang rape on her. Later, Naresh Gupta along with
his brother in law met the SHO concerned and HC Dilip Singh
Chauhan who said that the matter can be patched up whereafter
SHO left the room. Later in a statement made before ACP
Vigilance, Naresh Gupta stated that HC Dilip Singh Chauhan
had taken Rs.20,000/- and Rs.2,50,000/- in cash from his
brother-in-law Ratan Lal. Two days later, a meeting was
arranged between the girl, her mother and Ratan Lal and in the
presence of SHO S.B.Yadav, HC Dilip Singh Chauhan had
taken Rs.3,00,000/- in cash. After he was called to police
station upon serving a notice under Section 160 Cr.P.C., and
Rs.50,000/- in cash was taken from him and Dilip Singh said
that SHO was demanding more money. It is stated that SHO
S.B.Yadav and HC Dilip Singh had extorted a sum of
Rs.7,00,000/- in cash. This moneyhad been given to save his
honor. Based on the enquiry report of vigilance, orders of senior
officers and given statements, a case under Sections 7,8, 13 of
Prevention of Corruption Act and under Sections 384/201/120-
B IPC was registered in PS: Jahangir Puri.
4. During investigation, IO recorded the statements of
Sh.Rattan Lal, Sh.Uma Shanker, Sh.Anil Gupta and Sh.Naresh
Gupta who all stated that the IO had demanded bribe from them.
Rattan Lal also produced an audio CD with respect to his
W.P.(Crl.) No.781/14 & Crl.Revision P.No.224/14 Page 3 of 8
conversation with Ansaro Begum where she accepted that HC
Dilip Singh Chuahan had taken money from Rattan Lal and that
Rs.3,00,000/- was given to Dilip Singh in front of the SHO.
5. Rattan Lal in his statement stated that on 16.07.2010 HC
Dilip Singh Chauhan had got changed five tyres of a Santro Car
belonging to a police officer whose payment was given by him
and Naresh Gupta. HC Dilip Singh Chauhan along with Bal
Bahadur, driver of Naresh Gupta, had gone to Ashok Vihar,
Phase-I for getting the tyres of the car changed bearing
registration No.DL 4C AG 1568. Rattan Lal also presented a
copy of the bill. HC Dilip Singh Chauhan later arrested Anil
Gupta and demanded Rs.25,000/- in lieu of his release. On non
payment of the same, he arrested Anil Gupta on 06.08.2010 and
sent him to jail while photos of marriage of Anil Gupta with
Rukhsar had been produced to HC Dilip Singh Chauhan.
6. On 27.07.2010, Dilip Chauhan demanded delivery of
wheat, rice and grams of value around 10-12 thousand at his
house in Model Town, Delhi. On 27.04.2012 and 03.05.2012,
Inspector S.B.Yadav and HC Dilip Singh Chauhan, surrendered
before the court. They were arrested and taken in police
custody.
7. During investigation, it was revealed that on 16.07.2010
Lal Bahadur, driver of Naresh Gupta, accompanied HC Dilip
Singh Chauhan to Roop Nagar to pick a car from a house which
belonged to ACP Jai Bhagwan and that car was found registered
in the name of Ved Parkash, brother of ACP Jai Bhagwan,
W.P.(Crl.) No.781/14 & Crl.Revision P.No.224/14 Page 4 of 8
ACP, Jahangirpuri. Requisite sanction to prosecute the accused
was obtained and they were charge sheeted under Sections 7,
13(i)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act and under Sections
384/201/120B IPC.
8. After hearing the rival contention, the Trial Court held
that the meeting of minds of two or more persons for doing or
causing to be done an illegal act or an act by illegal means is a
sine qua non for the offence of criminal conspiracy and in the
instant case there was nothing on record to establish that there
was prior meeting of mind of accused S.B.Yadav and HC Dilip
Singh Chauhan whereby they hatched a criminal conspiracy in
order to extract bribe from the complainant and his brother-in-
law Ratan Lal and thus petitioner/accused S.B.Yadav was
discharged. However, concerning the accused Dilip Singh
Chauhan, the Trial Court held that the petitioner/accused Dilip
Singh Chauhan deserves to be charged as there was adequate
material on record to prima facie establish a case U/S 7 and 13
(2) r/w Section 13 (1) (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988
against him.
9. The learned counsel for the petitioner/HC Dilip Singh
Chauhan has taken the grounds in the petition that the
complaint in question was filed by the complainant who is an
accused in a rape case with a view to settle his score and the
refusal of the petitioner to entertain the request of his senior
officers to shield accused Naresh Gupta. The co-accused
S.B.Yadav has been discharged and the petitioner is also on
W.P.(Crl.) No.781/14 & Crl.Revision P.No.224/14 Page 5 of 8
the same footing and deserves parity. The complaint in
question is a counter blast against the fair investigation
conducted by the petitioner in FIR No.540/2009, PS: Jahangir
Puri. The sanction obtained is contrary to the provisions of
Section 19(2) of the PC Act and the Joint Commissioner of
Police who granted sanction was lacking jurisdiction. There
were no allegations of demand and acceptance of bribe by the
petitioner in the complaint.
10. The grounds taken by the State in their revision petition
against the discharge of the accused/S.B.Yadav are that there
are specific allegations against him in the complaint which
prima facie discloses the commission of offence; the Trial
Court was not required to analyze the evidence in detail at the
time of framing charge; there is material on record that both
the accused hatched a criminal conspiracy to extract bribe from
the complainant and Rs.3,00,000/- were given in the presence
of accused S.B.Yadav but despite the same, he did not take any
action against accused HC Dilip Singh Chauhan which shows
criminal conspiracy among the accused persons. The learned
APP in support of his case has relied upon the judgment in
case of Yogesh @ Sachin Jagdish Joshi v. State of
Maharashtra; 2008 (6) Scale 469 and State of Maharashtra
v. Priya Sharan Maharaj; 1997 (4) SCC 393 .
11. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and
perused the record.
12. The record reveals that the complainant Naresh Gupta in
W.P.(Crl.) No.781/14 & Crl.Revision P.No.224/14 Page 6 of 8
his statement had stated that both the accused had demanded
money for solving the case which was registered against the
complainant as the case was a big one. The complainant
authorized his brother-in-law Rattan Lal to handle the
payments to be made to the accused persons. Rattan Lal in his
statement had stated that on different occasions he paid
different amounts to the accused HC Dilip Singh Chauhan. He
also stated that on asking of accused Dilip Singh Chauhan he
got replaced five tyres of a car. He specifically stated that on
16.07.2010 he had paid Rs.20,000/- to accused HC Dilip Singh
Chauhan and subsequently he also paid a sum of Rs.2.5 lakhs.
He further paid Rs.3 lakhs to accused HC Dilip Singh Chauhan
for giving the same to the mother of the prosecutrix.
Subsequently also, he made various payments to accused HC
Dilip Singh Chauhan and also made payments with regard to
items purchased for him.
13. As per the statement of the complainant and his brother
in law Rattan Lal, all the demands of money and articles were
made by accused HC Dilip Singh Chauhan. There is no
allegation in any of the statements of these witnesses that
accused Inspector S.B.Yadav had ever demanded any money
from them or received anything in cash or kind from them.
14. It is a settled law that for constituting a criminal
conspiracy, prior meeting of minds is a sine qua non, but in the
present case, the ingredients of constituting criminal
conspiracy are missing. There is no material on record to
W.P.(Crl.) No.781/14 & Crl.Revision P.No.224/14 Page 7 of 8
show that both the accused persons had hatched any criminal
conspiracy either to demand illegal gratification or acceptance
of any money from the complainant’s side for showing any
favour or disfavour in the case lodged by the complainant
Naresh Gupta. In the absence of any material against accused
S.B.Yadav, it cannot be said that case for framing charge was
made out against him.
15. On the other hand, there are specific allegations and
material against accused HC Dilip Singh Chauhan that he
demanded illegal gratification and accepted the same from
Rattan Lal for facilitating the complainant Naresh Gupta in the
rape case in which accused HC Dilip Singh Chauhan was the
IO. So, prima facie, there was sufficient material against him
to frame charge.
16. In view of above discussion, this Court is of the
considered opinion that there is no any infirmity or illegality in
the impugned order dated 11.02.2014 to frame charge against
accused HC Dilip Singh Chauhan and to discharge accused
S.B.Yadav.
17. Both the petitions are accordingly dismissed.
(P.S.TEJI)
JUDGE
JULY 29, 2016
dm/dd
W.P.(Crl.) No.781/14 & Crl.Revision P.No.224/14 Page 8 of 8