Full Judgment Text
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
CRL.M.C. 39/2020 and CRL.M.A. 194/2020 (Stay)
Reserved on : 06.08.2021
Date of Decision : 23.08.2021
IN THE MATTER OF:
ATUL KUMAR ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Sarojanand Jha, Mr. Suraj
Malik and Ms. Megha Shawani,
Advocates.
versus
STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Ms. Neelam Sharma, APP for
State with SI Sushil Sanwaria,
DIU, Central Distt.
Mr. Amarjeet Singh Sahni,
Advocate for R-2 with R-2 in
person.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR OHRI
JUDGMENT
MANOJ KUMAR OHRI, J.
1. The present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. on
behalf of the petitioner assailing the order dated 06.09.2019 passed by
the learned ASJ-04, West District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in Criminal
Revision No. 77/2019, whereby the order dated 21.01.2019 passed by the
CRL.M.C. 39/2020 Page 1 of 18
learned MM-05 (West), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi accepting the closure
report qua only the present petitioner has been set aside. Insofar as the
order of learned Magistrate accepting the closure report qua the two
police officers is concerned, the same was upheld.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the present case
arises out of FIR No. 140/2016 registered under Section 306 IPC at P.S.
Anand Parbat, Delhi. It was submitted that the aforesaid FIR was
registered in pursuance of a complaint dated 22.01.2015 filed by
respondent No. 2 ( Ms. Paramjit Kaur Grewal ) against the petitioner and
two police officers namely SI Jagroop Singh and Ct. Vijender, nearly 44
days after the date on which suicide was committed by her husband, Mr.
Arvinder Singh Grewal (hereinafter referred to as the deceased .)
3. Learned counsel has submitted that the petitioner is a resident of
USA, having interest in antique vintage motorcycles. While doing an
online search, the petitioner came to know that one M/s Palli Motors,
belonging to the deceased, was involved in the business of sale/purchase
of vintage motorcycles. As the contact details of the deceased along with
photographs of the motorcycles were displayed on the website
http://www.flickr.com/photos/pallimotors, the petitioner contacted the
deceased through an e-mail dated 27.05.2011 and expressed his desire to
purchase a vintage BSA or Triumph or other British motorcycle from
him. The deceased vide his reply e-mail dated 30.05.2011 quoted the
price for two different BSA motorcycles i.e., Rs.2,00,000/- for BB31
BSA 350CC and Rs. 2,70,000/- for WM20 BSA 500CC. The petitioner
agreed to purchase the latter and as per instructions of the deceased,
transferred a sum of USD 4,650 on 02.05.2012 in the account of one
CRL.M.C. 39/2020 Page 2 of 18
Narender Verma through banking channel, who acknowledged the
receipt of the said amount through his E-mail dated 03.05.2012.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that despite
the receipt of complete payment in the year 2012, the deceased did not
handover the possession of the vintage motorcycle. On 11.11.2014, the
petitioner came to India and on legal advice, had a legal notice dated
19.11.2014 issued to the deceased and Narender Verma . Later, a criminal
complaint dated 27.11.2014 for offences punishable under Sections
420/406 IPC read with Section 120B IPC was also filed by him at Police
Station Anand Parbat, Delhi against aforementioned persons. The
th th
petitioner, thereafter, left India on the intervening night of 5 and 6
December, 2014. On 09.12.2014, the deceased committed suicide and
left behind a suicide note naming the present petitioner as the reason for
taking the extreme step.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner
only acted as per the legal advice given to him. It is not the prosecution
case that the petitioner had either threatened the deceased or interacted
with him during his stay in India. It was further submitted that taking
legal recourse to one’s remedy, by no stretch of imagination, amounts to
abetment. It was also submitted that as the petitioner had left India on the
th th
intervening night of 5 and 6 December, 2014 and the suicide was
committed by the deceased on 09.12.2014, the same cannot be said to be
a direct result of any act of the petitioner. In support of his contentions,
learned counsel has placed reliance on the following decisions :-
i) M. Mohan v. State reported as (2011) 3 SCC 626 .
CRL.M.C. 39/2020 Page 3 of 18
ii) Rohit v. The State of Maharashtra and Ors.
reported as MANU/MH/2330/2020 .
iii) Rajesh @ Raja Yadav v. State of M.P. reported as
2016 SCC OnLine MP 9892 .
iv) Sanju alias Sanjay Singh Sengar v. State of M.P.
reported as (2002) 5 SCC 371 .
v) Gulab v. State of Maharashtra and Another reported as 2019
SCC OnLine Bom 147 .
6. Lastly, it has been submitted that the closure report was rightly
accepted by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate. The Revisional Court
ought not to have reversed the acceptance of the closure report by the
learned Metropolitan Magistrate as the scope of Section 397 Cr.P.C. is
very limited. In support of this submission, learned counsel has placed
reliance on the decision in Sanjaysinh Ramrao Chavan v. Dattatray
Gulabrao Phalke & Others reported as (2015) 3 SCC 123 .
7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 has
vehemently opposed the present petition. He has laid emphasis on the
suicide note to submit that the deceased was harassed by the petitioner
despite having taken possession of the motorcycle in the year 2012. After
coming to India, the petitioner had sent a legal notice and also lodged a
false police complaint against the deceased as he wanted his other
motorcycles to be serviced by the deceased free of cost. Learned counsel
for respondent No. 2 also challenged the filing of closure report and
submitted that besides the petitioner, two police officials had also been
implicated in the complaint. Even though the investigation was done by
DIU, Rohini, the petitioner was let off despite his not having joined
investigation only in order to give clean chit to the two police officials.
CRL.M.C. 39/2020 Page 4 of 18
8. I have heard learned counsels for the parties and gone through the
case records.
9. As noted above, the genesis of the case lies in the transaction
entered into between the petitioner and the deceased with respect to
purchase of a vintage motorcycle; and in relation to which the petitioner
on instructions of the deceased transferred a sum of USD 4,650 in the
account of one Narender Verma , who acknowledged the receipt of the
amount vide his e-mail dated 03.05.2012 stating that he would be
sending the bank transfer receipt.
10. On one hand, it is the case of the petitioner that the entire
consideration having been paid in the year 2012, the vintage motorcycle
was never delivered. On the other hand, the complainant’s case is that
delivery of the subject motorcycle having been made in the year 2012
itself, the petitioner had lodged a false complaint against the deceased for
harassment, solely for the purpose of getting his other motorcycles
serviced by him free of cost. It is claimed that the delivery of the vintage
motorcycle was made in the year 2012 to the petitioner’s authorized
person but the requisite transfer documents were promised to be executed
once he came to India.
11. The issue involved when narrowed down is whether issuance of a
legal notice and filing of a complaint case by the petitioner would
amount to ‘abetment’ punishable under Section 306 IPC, which reads as
under:
“Abetment of suicide.—If any person commits suicide,
whoever abets the commission of such suicide, shall be
punished with imprisonment of either description for a
CRL.M.C. 39/2020 Page 5 of 18
term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be
liable to fine.”
12. A person abets the doing of a thing if he firstly, instigates any
person to do that thing; or secondly, engages with one or more other
person or persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing, if an act
or illegal omission takes place in pursuance of that conspiracy, and in
order to the doing of that thing; or thirdly, intentionally aids, by any act
or illegal omission, the doing of that thing. It is relevant to quote Section
107 IPC which defines “abetment” as-
“Section 107- Abetment of a thing - A person abets the
doing of a thing, who—
First.- Instigates any person to do that thing; or
Secondly.- Engages with one or more other person or
persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing, if
an act or illegal omission takes place in pursuance of
that conspiracy, and in order to the doing of that thing;
or
Thirdly.- Intentionally aids, by any act or illegal
omission, the doing of that thing.
Explanation 1.- A person who, by wilful
misrepresentation, or by wilful concealment of a
material fact which he is bound to disclose, voluntarily
causes or procures, or attempts to cause or procure, a
thing to be done, is said to instigate the doing of that
thing.
Explanation 2.- Whoever, either prior to or at the time
of the commission of an act, does anything in order to
facilitate the commission of that act, and thereby
facilitate the commission thereof, is said to aid the
doing of that act.”
CRL.M.C. 39/2020 Page 6 of 18
13. To appreciate the contentions made by learned counsels for the
parties, this Court deems it apposite to reproduce the suicide note, which
reads as follows:
“28.11.2014
(My Declaration)
This copy of letter is posted to Prime Minister, Delhi
Police Commissioner and 5 other Ministries.
I'm innocent. ATUL R/o Punjabi Bagh in America, has
been black mailing me against his money I have given
him BSA 1952 350 CC Regd No DLQ 2524. It is
standing in his rented place 23 Madan Park, where all
his motorcycles are standing as he is threatening me to
restore his motorcycles one he gave me on 1st/12/14
we loaded his bike. It’s mostly done Completed Know
as he told me he will take back his Complaint on
completing his motorcycle Maticular 350 as I am
completing it he said he will not pay me if I will not
complete his motorcycle he will file a case and neelam
(auction) this building which does not belong to me its
my late father S.B.S Grewal property. I am the only
one to earn the living for my family. For being a NRI
Atul is taking benefit his cousin with his friend took
BSA DLQ 2524 with papers and told me Atul will come
to India and sign delivery papers but he did not gave
me. Instead he started threatening me as I am mentally
disturb don't know what to do. Kindly insaaf kiya jaye
mere sath (kindly do justice with me). He is responsible
for my DEATH. His Matchulass UPI other three digit
no I have forget. I have done that one BSA I repaired
for him (BSA 500 1942 Red Color). Standing in same
Atul's place and police from police station also
harassing me.
(copies) send,
To, Prime Minister
CRL.M.C. 39/2020 Page 7 of 18
To, Commissioner of Police
To, Home Ministry
To, High Court
To, Supreme Court
Respect and Regards
Arvinder
And let IQBAL SINGH to work here for his living at my
place as I will I not be in this world to bear the tortures
from Atul and my life.
Arvinder
As I have dropped messages on his phone and called
him he is not responding.
ATUL no- USA +16127353911
-IND 987... (not legible)
Arvinder”
14. At this juncture, I deem it necessary to recapitulate the law on the
subject. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the
decision of M. Mohan (Supra), which was related to an incident where
the deceased was denied use of the family car for coming to Theme Park
Festival on the occasion of Pongal. While the entire family travelled in
the family car belonging to the brother-in-law, the deceased and her
husband were told to reach the destination by public bus and the
deceased was told that if she wants to travel by car, she has to bring a car
from her family. Being hurt by the taunting statement regarding denial of
use of family car, the deceased demanded a car from her father and
committed suicide after four days. The Supreme Court came to the
CRL.M.C. 39/2020 Page 8 of 18
conclusion that there was no proximate link between the incident dated
14.01.2005 and the factum of suicide which had taken place on
18.01.2005. It was noted that the deceased was hyper-sensitive to
ordinary petulance, discord and differences which happen in day-to-day
life, especially in a joint family. After masquerading through the entire
law, the criminal proceedings were quashed.
15. In Sanju alias Sanjay Singh Sengar (Supra), the deceased had
committed suicide after a quarrel took place between him and his wife’s
brother. He had gone to the house of the parents of his wife where he was
reportedly humiliated during a quarrel. Upon coming back, the deceased
had informed his family members that his brother-in-law threatened and
abused him by using filthy language. On the next day, he committed
suicide and left behind a suicide note, wherein it was stated that his
brother-in-law had threatened to make a report of dowry demand against
his family members. He blamed his brother-in-law. During the
investigation, it came on record that the deceased was without any work
and used to consume liquor. It was observed that the suicide note could
not be said to be a handiwork of a man with sound mind and sense.
16. In Rohit (Supra), the deceased had taken a loan from a financial
institution, which was partially repaid but the accused starting harassing
him for the remaining amount. Eventually, the deceased committed
suicide and left behind a suicide note stating the factum of harassment
given by the accused. The Division Bench of the Bombay High Court
came to the conclusion that demand of pending loan by the accused was
part of his duty being an employee of the finance company and by no
CRL.M.C. 39/2020 Page 9 of 18
stretch of imagination it could constitute intention or aid or instigation in
committing suicide.
17. In Gulab (Supra), the deceased had entered into a partnership with
the accused and started a hotel business on his ancestral agricultural land.
However, the same was shut down after six months of opening due to
losses and subsequently, the deceased committed suicide leaving behind
a suicide note wherein the accused was blamed. Allegations against the
accused were that he had threatened the deceased to transfer his
agricultural land in exchange for the expenses incurred by him towards
construction of the hotel. Further, he had instituted proceedings before
the Court against the deceased. It was held that it was not a case of
persistent torture and harassment of the deceased and it could not be said
that the accused had tortured the deceased with an intention to guide him
to commit suicide.
18. In Gurcharan Singh v . State of Punjab reported as (2017) 1 SCC
433, the Supreme Court observed as under:
“21. It is thus manifest that the offence punishable is one of
abetment of the commission of suicide by any person, predicating
existence of a live link or nexus between the two, abetment being
the propelling causative factor. The basic ingredients of this
provision are suicidal death and the abetment thereof. To
constitute abetment, the intention and involvement of the accused
to aid or instigate the commission of suicide is imperative. Any
severance or absence of any of these constituents would militate
against this indictment. Remoteness of the culpable acts or
omissions rooted in the intention of the accused to actualize the
CRL.M.C. 39/2020 Page 10 of 18
suicide would fall short as well of the offence of abetment essential
to attract the punitive mandate of Section 306 IPC. Contiguity,
continuity, culpability and complicity of the indictable acts or
omission are the concomitant indices of abetment. Section 306
IPC, thus criminalizes the sustained incitement for suicide.”
19. To attribute the acts of the petitioner as abetment, there has to be
some causal link and proximity of the acts of the petitioner with the
deceased committing suicide. It has to be shown that the petitioner did an
active act or direct act which led the deceased to commit suicide seeing
no option. Also, it has to be shown that the petitioner’s act must have
been intended to push the deceased into such a position that they
committed suicide. Further, the prosecution has to show that the
petitioner had the mens rea to commit the offence.
20. Abetment involves a mental process of instigating a person or
intentionally aiding a person in doing of a thing. The Supreme Court’s
observation in Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh reported as (2001)
9 SCC 618 informs the law on this issue, wherein it was explicated that:
“20. Instigation is to goad, urge forward, provoke, incite or
encourage to do 'an act'. To satisfy the requirement of instigation
though it is not necessary that actual words must be used to that
effect or what constitutes instigation must necessarily and
specifically be suggestive of the consequence. Yet a reasonable
certainty to incite the consequence must be capable of being spelt
out. The present one is not a case where the accused had by his
acts or omission or by a continued course of conduct created such
circumstances that the deceased was left with no other option
CRL.M.C. 39/2020 Page 11 of 18
except to commit suicide in which case an instigation may have
been inferred. A word uttered in the fit of anger or emotion without
intending the consequences to actually follow cannot be said to be
instigation.”
21. In Ude Singh and Others v. State of Haryana reported as (2019) 17
SCC 301 , the Supreme Court while taking account of the different ways
in which different people react to similar actions, observed as under:
“16.1. For the purpose of finding out if a person has abetted
commission of suicide by another, the consideration would be if
the accused is guilty of the act of instigation of the act of suicide.
As explained and reiterated by this Court in the decisions above
referred, instigation means to goad, urge forward, provoke, incite
or encourage to do an act. If the persons who committed suicide
had been hypersensitive and the action of accused is otherwise not
ordinarily expected to induce a similarly circumstanced person to
commit suicide, it may not be safe to hold the accused guilty of
abetment of suicide. But, on the other hand, if the accused by his
acts and by his continuous course of conduct creates a situation
which leads the deceased perceiving no other option except to
commit suicide, the case may fall within the four-corners of
Section 306 IPC. If the accused plays an active role in tarnishing
the self-esteem and self-respect of the victim, which eventually
draws the victim to commit suicide, the accused may be held guilty
of abetment of suicide. The question of mens rea on the part of the
accused in such cases would be examined with reference to the
actual acts and deeds of the accused and if the acts and deeds are
CRL.M.C. 39/2020 Page 12 of 18
only of such nature where the accused intended nothing more than
harassment or snap show of anger, a particular case may fall
short of the offence of abetment of suicide. However, if the accused
kept on irritating or annoying the deceased by words or deeds
until the deceased reacted or was provoked, a particular case may
be that of abetment of suicide. Such being the matter of delicate
analysis of human behaviour, each case is required to be examined
on its own facts, while taking note of all the surrounding factors
having bearing on the actions and psyche of the accused and the
deceased.”
22. Again, in M. Arjunan v. State (Represented by Its Inspector of
Police) reported as (2019) 3 SCC 315 , the Supreme Court elucidated the
essential ingredients of the offence under Section 306 IPC in the
following manner:
“7. The essential ingredients of the offence under Section 306
IPC are: (i) the abetment; (ii) the intention of the accused to aid or
instigate or abet the deceased to commit suicide. The act of the
accused, however, insulting the deceased by using abusive
language will not, by itself, constitute the abetment of suicide.
There should be evidence capable of suggesting that the accused
intended by such act to instigate the deceased to commit suicide.
Unless the ingredients of instigation/abetment to commit suicide
are satisfied the accused cannot be convicted under Section 306
IPC.”
CRL.M.C. 39/2020 Page 13 of 18
23. Recently, the Supreme Court in Gurcharan Singh v. State of
Punjab reported as (2020) 10 SCC 200 , reiterated the exposition of law
relating to the offence of abetment with the following observations:
“15. As in all crimes, mens rea has to be established. To prove
the offence of abetment, as specified under Section 107 IPC, the
state of mind to commit a particular crime must be visible, to
determine the culpability. In order to prove mens rea, there has to
be something on record to establish or show that the appellant
herein had a guilty mind and in furtherance of that state of mind,
abetted the suicide of the deceased….”
24. In the present case, the complainant (wife of the deceased) filed a
criminal complaint under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., which, on the direction
given by the learned Magistrate, was investigated by the DIU Cell. As
per the suicide note, the deceased had sold one motorcycle BSA 1952
350 CC bearing registration number DL2Q 2524 to the petitioner.
However, during investigation from the transport authority it came on
record that the aforesaid registration number was allotted to an LML
scooter in the name of one Sushil Abbot, son of Late Sh. Krishna Lal
Abbott . A notice was issued to Sushil Abbott , whose son replied that
Sushil Abbott had expired on 23.12.1996 and he never owned any
motorcycle. Further, the scooter owned by them bearing registration No.
DLQ 2524 had been sold long back to a scrap dealer.
25. During investigation, the Call Detail Record (CDR) of both the
petitioner as well as the deceased were obtained. As per CDRs, while the
deceased had called twice on the number of the petitioner on 08.12.2014
and 09.12.2014, the petitioner had not given even a single call to the
CRL.M.C. 39/2020 Page 14 of 18
deceased. A call was received by the deceased from one of the two police
officials implicated, Ct. Vijender on 06.12.2014 who had stated that the
deceased was called on that day to the Police Station for the purpose of
inquiry on petitioner’s complaint. No other calls were received by the
deceased.
26. On the basis of above investigation, a closure report was filed on
22.09.2016 which was accepted by learned Metropolitan Magistrate vide
order dated 21.01.2019.
27. In the complaint filed by wife of the deceased, it has been alleged
that the petitioner with a view to harass the deceased had issued the legal
notice and filed the criminal complaint so that the deceased would repair
his other two motorcycles free of cost. It is stated that the deceased was
harassed and mentally tortured by the police officers on the complaint
lodged by the petitioner. The deceased had told the complainant that he
was called at the Police Station on 06.12.2014 where he was made to sit
on his knees for a long period and was tortured/harassed. Due to the said
act, he could not sleep the whole night and was disturbed. It is also stated
that the deceased repeatedly tried to contact the petitioner on his phone
but he avoided the phone calls.
28. From the sequence of events as apparent from a combined reading
of the suicide note, criminal complaint and the investigation conducted it
is seen that the criminal complaint filed by the petitioner against the
deceased was pending inquiry and no FIR was registered. The deceased
was called only once to the Police Station. The stand of the deceased,
that the possession of the motorcycle purchased by the petitioner was
already handed over, was yet to be looked into. In the complaint filed by
CRL.M.C. 39/2020 Page 15 of 18
the wife of the deceased, it was stated on one hand that the petitioner was
harassing the deceased to repair his other motorcycles free of cost, but on
the other, it was stated that the petitioner did not take back his
motorcycle after it was repaired.
29. It is also noteworthy that on the day the deceased was called to the
Police Station, the petitioner had already left India a night earlier. As per
CDR details, no calls were made by the petitioner to the deceased and the
only calls made by the deceased to the petitioner after he had left India
remained unanswered. The deceased was mentally upset as the petitioner
had issued a legal notice and filed a criminal complaint against him. The
only time when the deceased was called to the Police Station to join
inquiry was on 06.12.2014 and the suicide was committed on
09.12.2014.
30. The suicide note runs into three pages. On each page, the deceased
had put date of 28.11.2014 and also appended his signatures. It records
that on 01.12.2014, the petitioner had given a motorcycle for restoration.
From a perusal of the suicide note, it seems probable that a portion of it
was written on 28.11.2014 and the note was completed on a later date. In
this note, the deceased also mentions that he was mentally disturbed.
31. The deceased had felt harassed but, in these facts, the act of
petitioner could not be held to have abetted the deceased in committing
suicide. The filing of a criminal complaint by the petitioner was his legal
recourse, as advised to him. As noted above, the transaction between the
petitioner and the deceased relating to purchase of a vintage motorcycle
is an admitted fact. Whether the motorcycle was delivered to the
petitioner or not, would have been established after inquiry. It cannot be
CRL.M.C. 39/2020 Page 16 of 18
said that by filing a criminal complaint against the deceased, the
petitioner had the mens rea to instigate or goad the deceased to commit
suicide; and further, that the deceased was left with no other option but to
commit suicide. Even as per investigation, the deceased was called to the
Police Station only once on 06.12.2014 i.e., three days before he
committed suicide. Also, the acceptance of closure report qua the two
police officers by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate and its affirmation
by learned ASJ, has not been challenged by the complainant and has
attained finality.
32. In State of Haryana and Others v . Bhajan Lal and Others reported
as 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 , the Supreme Court while summarizing the
principles of law governing the exercise of the inherent powers under
Section 482 Cr.P.C. to prevent abuse of the process of court or otherwise
to secure the ends of justice held that such power could be invoked to
bring an end to the criminal prosecution in cases where “the
uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the
evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission
of any offence and make out a case against the accused”.
33. The Supreme Court has cautioned that summoning of an accused
in a criminal case is a serious matter. Criminal law cannot be set into
motion as a matter of course [Refer: Pepsi Foods Ltd. and Another v .
Special Judicial Magistrate and Others reported as (1998) 5 SCC 749 ].
Also, Article 21 of the Constitution of India assures every person right to
life and personal liberty. The word personal liberty is of the widest
amplitude covering a variety of rights which constitute personal liberty
of a citizen. Its deprivation shall be only as per procedure prescribed in
CRL.M.C. 39/2020 Page 17 of 18
the Code and the Evidence Act conformable to the mandate of the
supreme law, i.e., the Constitution. [Refer: State of Bihar and Another v .
P.P. Sharma , IAS and Another reported as 1992 Supp (1) SCC 222 ]
34. When the facts of the present case are analyzed in light of the legal
principles extracted hereinabove, neither any live link nor any proximity
between the acts of the petitioner and the act of committing suicide by
the deceased is discernible. The requisite mens rea on part of the
petitioner is also lacking. It cannot be said that the petitioner had abetted
or instigated the deceased to commit suicide and that the deceased was
left with no option but to commit suicide. This Court is of the opinion
that necessary ingredients of the offence punishable under Section 306
IPC are not made out against the petitioner with the result that the
petition is allowed and the impugned order passed by the learned ASJ
directing the Trial Court to proceed with the matter, is set aside.
35. Petition is disposed of in the above terms. Miscellaneous
application is disposed of as infructuous.
36. A copy of this order be communicated electronically to the
concerned Trial Court and also uploaded on the website.
( MANOJ KUMAR OHRI)
JUDGE
AUGUST 23, 2021/ ga
Click here to check corrigendum, if any
CRL.M.C. 39/2020 Page 18 of 18