* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Reserved on: 16^th April, 2025 Pronounced on: 28^thJune, 2025 + CRL.A. 560/2025 CAPT. RAM KUMAR (RETD).

S/o Late Shri Harke Ram Flat No.20, Sector-18-A, Vijay Veer Awas, Dwarka New Delhi-110075 .....Appellant Through: Mr. Raghuvender Godara, Advocates Versus

1. RAJESH HUDA S/o Late Shri Ram Narayan Flat No.340, Vijay Veer Awas Sector 18-A, Dwarka New Delhi-110075

2. THE STATE .....Respondents Through: Mr. Satyavan Kudalwal, Advocate for Respondent No.1 CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA

J U D G M E N T

NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA, J.

1. Appeal under Section 378 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as “Cr.P.C.”) has been filed on behalf of the Appellant/Complainant, Capt. Ram Kumar (Retd.) against the impugned Judgment dated 04.12.2018 whereby the Respondent/Accused has been Signature Not Verified Signed By:RITA CRL.A. 560/2019 Page 1 of 10 acquitted by the learned M.M. under Section 341/506 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as “IPC”).

2. The Complainant/Appellant had filed a Complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. read along with Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. for registration of FIR against the Respondent. The Application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. got dismissed.

3. The Complainant/Appellant examined himself as CW1 in the pre- summoning evidence and the Respondent was summoned under Section

341/506 IPC by the learned M.M. on 11.09.2015.

4. Notice under Section 251 Cr.P.C. was framed on 20.07.2016 to which the Respondent pleaded not guilty.

5. The Complainant/Appellant examined himself as CW1. and was duly cross-examined by the Respondent/Accused.

6. He also examined CW2, Const. Ravinder Kumar who proved Complaint Register bearing Serial No.646 dated 03.07.2013 whereby the Complaint by the Appellant was made, Ex.CW2/A on which DD No.78 Ex.

CW2/8 was recorded.

7. The statement of the Respondent/Accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. wherein he denied all the incriminating evidence against him. He set up the defence that the Complainant/Appellant, who was a property dealer, had asked him to sell his flat to which he had declined. The Appellant tried to put pressure on the Respondent through his father-in-law. And had threatened him that he would take revenge of the quarrel by getting him falsely implicated in a case.

Signature Not Verified Signed By:RITA CRL.A. 560/2019 Page 2 of 10

8. The learned M.M. referred to the Complaint and the testimony of CW1/Appellant to observe that there was no evidence about the Complainant/Appellant having been wrongfully restrained or criminally intimidated and consequently acquitted the Respondent/Accused.

9. Aggrieved by acquittal dated 04.12.2018 the present appeal has been preferred by the Complainant/Appellant.

10. The grounds of challenge are that inadvertently the facts regarding the wrongful restraint by the Respondent/Accused could not be mentioned in the Complaint dated 30.07.2013, but these facts were duly brought forward in the evidence of the Complainant/Appellant which has not been appreciated by the learned M.M.

11. Further, while the Complainant/Appellant in his testimony had deposed that the Complaint had been written by him but in his cross- examination he had merely clarified that the Complaint was written by his neighbour, Mr. Jain but it was under his signatures. Therefore, to observe that this factum created a doubt about a veracity of the statement of the Complainant/Appellant, is erroneous.

12. It is further contended that it has not been appreciated that earlier an FIR No.112/2012 under Section 336/341/307 IPC read with 27 Arms Act had been registered against the Respondent/Accused, on his Complaint. Subsequently, the Respondent/Accused had criminally intimidated the Complainant/Appellant on 30.07.2013 by giving a threat to him to withdraw his earlier case FIR 212/12. The testimony of the Complainant/Appellant was consistent, but has been wrongly discarded by the learned M.M.

Signature Not Verified Si