A discharge of accused in a criminal case is justified if the complainant's allegations lack corroborative evidence from witnesses and do not establish a case of criminal intimidation.

Headnote:(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 482 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 506, 509, 34 - Petition filed for revision against discharge of accused in FIR No.22/2009 - Trial court's order not found perverse - No corroborative evidence from witnesses to support complainant's allegations of assault or abuse - Matter dismissed. (Paras 5, 9, 10, 12)

(B) Discharge of Accused - A criminal trial must have sufficient evidence beyond mere allegations - Complaints without corroboration from reliable witnesses cannot stand. (Paras 8, 9)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner alleged threats and abuses by the respondents regarding a parking dispute; FIR filed without substantial evidence leading to discharge by Sessions Court.

Findings of Court:
Petitioner's allegations lacked consistency and supporting witness statements.

Issues: Whether the impugned order lacked legal basis in assessing the complainant's claims; adequacy of evidentiary support for the charges framed.

Ratio Decidendi: Lack of substantial evidence supporting the complainant's assertions led the court to uphold the discharge of the accused.

Result: Petition dismissed.

JUDGMENT

1. This petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. by the complainant in FIR No.22/2009 registered under Sections 506/509/34 IPC at PS Hazrat Nizamuddin Delhi against the order dated 30.09.2019 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-03, S.E. Saket Courts.

2. It may be noted at this juncture, that vide order dated 23rd September, 2016 the learned Metropolitan Magistrate (`MM')-03/SE, Saket Courts had directed the framing of charge against the respondents No.2 to 4 for offences under Sections 506, 509 read with 34 IPC. Aggrieved, respondents No.2 to 4 filed a revision which was allowed by the learned ASJ-03/SE, Saket Courts vide the impugned order dated 30th September, 2019, discharging the accused, namely respondents No.2 to 4, and thus allowing the criminal revision petition.

3. Mr. Rajeshwar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in the impugned order there has been no discussion whatsoever, in respect of the offences under Section 509 read with 34 IPC. Therefore, the order be set aside and the matter be remanded. It is also submitted that there is no doubt that the incident had occurred and the complainant had made the statement to the Police about how she had been grappled and assaulted, abused and threatened and her statement was sufficient to frame the charge against the accused persons, namely the respondents No.2 to 4. On this ground too, learned counsel urged that the order be set aside and that of the learned MM restored and the matter be remanded to the learned Trial Court for trial as per law.

4. Mr. Sudhir Nandarajog, learned senior counsel for the respondents No.2 to 4 on the other hand, submitted that a civil case is already pending between the parties and the present criminal case has been filed only with an intention to somehow pressurize the respondents No.2 to 4. It is submitted that no witness examined by the Investigating Officer (IO) has supported the petitioner in her allegations of having been assaulted or abused. Learned senior counsel has drawn attention of this Court to the statements of the witnesses recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., being part of the charge-sheet and placed on the record as Annexure A-3 (pages 63 to 70 and translated version placed from page No.71 to 78). It was submitted that there was no error in the impugned judgment and the petition be dismissed.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and I have perused the record. The Court would exercise its powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. only when there was reason to do so, on account of perversity in the impugned order or miscarriage of justice. On a perusal of the impugned order, no such circumstances are revealed. The charge-sheet is Annexure A-3, wherein, after complete investigations it has been reported that the petitioner had herself sold out the first and second floors of the House No. I-1, Jungpura, Mathura Road, New Delhi to the respondent No.2 Kuldeep Kumar and his wife Sadhna. The incident took place on the issue of parking when the petitioner sought to place a `No Parking Board' which was opposed by the respondents No.2 to 4, who claimed that after due inquiry from the traffic police, they had learnt that the petitioner had no permission of any kind to place a `No Parking Board' on the grill.

6. Though the complainant in the FIR has complained about the pushing and abuses, but not one witness examined by the Investigating Officer (IO) has supported her. Nine witnesses have been examined by the IO, they are either shopkeepers or residents of the area. Though they have all stated that on 20th January, 2010, an altercation had taken place between the petitioner and respondents No.2 to 4, they have stated that it was on account of the placing of a `No Parking Board' by the petitioner. According to all of them, the respondents No.2 to 4 had objected to the placing of the said board but the petitioner had insisted that she would place the board come what may.