The charge should be considered groundless only if there is no basis or foundation in evidence.

JUDGMENT :

AMIT SHARMA J.

1. The present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., seeks setting aside of the order dated 31.03.2014 passed by Mr. Praveen Kumar, Special Judge, PC Act, CBI-III, Rohini Courts, Delhi in Criminal Revision Petition no. 04/2017 arising out of FIR No. 221/2008 under Sections 408/420/506/120-B IPC, registered at PS Sultanpuri.

2. The impugned order passed by the learned Special Judge allowed the revision petition filed by respondent no. 2 herein, against an order on charge dated 16.12.2013 passed by Sh. Sumedh Kumar Sethi, learned Metropolitan Magistrate, North-West, Rohini, Delhi whereby the said respondent alongwith other co-accused persons were charged for the offence under Section 506 of IPC.

3. The relevant facts for the adjudication of the present petition are as follows:

i. The petitioner herein, was doing business of Metals and Irons under the name and style of M/s S.M.Traders and had a godown at I/2/33-34, Budh Vihar, Phase-II, New Delhi. One Ushpaq/Aspak, was employed as Supervisor–cum-Store Keeper at the said godown. It is alleged that on 20.12.2007, goods worth Rs. 24-25 Lacs belonging to the petitioner went missing from the aforesaid godown. It is further alleged that on inquiry from Ushpaq/Aspak it was revealed that he alongwith Firoz Khan and Rifat Khan (respondent no. 2) had sold missing goods to some kabaadi without petitioner’s permission.

ii. It is further alleged that the petitioner warned the three accused persons including the respondent no. 2 herein, of lodging a complaint but offered pardon to them on their returning the entire sum of money within 10-15 days. It is further alleged that after 15 days, petitioner visited the house of said Ushpaq/Aspak for the said purpose, however, latter excused himself on the pretext of calling Firoz Khan and Rifat Khan (respondent no. 2), but never came back.

iii. It is alleged that on 16.01.2008, the respondent no. 2 alongwith Ushpaq/Aspak and Firoz Khan barged into the house of petitioner, alongwith 3-4 gundas, armed with revolver and threatened the petitioner and his family. It is alleged that they put revolver on the chest of the petitioner and said, “Agar tumne dobara paise mange to jaan se maar denge, paiso ko bhulkar apne bachho ka khyal kar.”.

iv. Thereafter, it is alleged that respondent no. 2 alongwith aforesaid accused persons started beating the petitioner. It is also stated that, one Anil Kumar intervened to save the petitioner. It is further alleged that, respondent no. 2 alongwith others left the spot threatening the petitioner with dire consequences, if he informed the police of the said incident.

The petitioner filed complaints, on 11.02.2008 and 15.02.2008, regarding the incident to the SHO and other senior officers including DCP, however, no action was taken.

v. On a complaint filed by the petitioner under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C., the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, gave a direction to register a FIR and consequently FIR No.221/2008 was registered at PS Sultanpuri, on 28.03.2008 under Sections 408/420/506/120B IPC. After investigation of the said FIR, chargesheet was filed before the court of learned Metropolitan Magistrate under Sections 408/420/506/120B IPC.

vi. At the stage of charge, the learned Metropolitan Magistrate passed an order dated 16.12.2013, whereby respondent alongwith other accused persons were charged only for the offence under Section 506 of IPC and co-accused Ushpaq/Aspak was charged for offence under Section 408 of IPC. The learned Metropolitan Magistrate in the order dated 16.12.2013 recorded as under:

“…. Section 506 IPC provides for punishment for criminal intimidation. There are specific allegations against all three accused persons in this regard in the original complaint as well as statement U/s. 161 Cr. P.C. of PW Anil Kumar. Counsel for accused persons has pointed out discrepancies in his initial statement and his supplementary statement. However, counsel for complainant has relied upon the case