ANKIT SHAH & ANR Vs. STATE & ANR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition under Sec. 482 Cr.PC preferred by the petitioner for quashing FIR No. 271/2009 under Ss. 186, 353, 189, 332/34 IPC registered at Police Station K. Nagar Delhi and all the consequential proceedings arising therefrom including the order dated 7.7.2010 passed by learned MM whereby he took cognizance of the offence punishable under Ss. 186, 189 IPC against all the four accused persons arrayed in the aforesaid FIR.

(2.) Before adverting to the grounds on which the reliefs are sought by the petitioners, facts in nutshell may be noted. The Employees Provident Fund Department, Government of India (complainant in the aforesaid FIR) made a complaint against the accused persons that on 9.7.2009, the Enforcement Squad visited the premises of M/s Shah Namkeens in order to examine the record of the establishment to explore the possibility of its coverage under EP & MP Act, 1952. They introduced themselves and asked for the production of records for verification. The person at the reception not only declined to produce any record but also misbehaved rudely with them. One of the sons of the owner Mr. Sunil Shah appeared and started clicking photographs of the officials and threatened with dire consequences. Their staff, including the lady officer who had gone behind the showroom verifying the record pertaining to the establishment were also obstructed to enter and they were misbehaved. The workers were made to run away by the management and so no headcount of the workers could be made. It was alleged that sons of Mr. Sunil Shah and Mr. J.S. Tyagi, the Manager, not only misbehaved with the officers but also did not provide relevant record despite sufficient requests made to them and in this way they tried to obstruct the squad members in conducting their official duty and also tried to harm them by manhandling and causing threats to their lives, ultimately they had to call the police. The SHO of the area arrived at the spot with sufficient police force. The owner switched off the lights, fans, ACs and closed the doors. The SHO intervened and directed the owner Mr. Sunil Shah and his sons to produce the records, but they declined. They also did not open the door for verification of the records pertaining to the establishment. Later, owner Mr. Sunil Shah also contacted the SHO on phone and declined to produce the records. It was on these allegations that the case against the two sons namely Amit Shah, Ankit Shah and Manager Jasvir Tyagi and employee Ram Goptal Goswami was registered vide the aforesaid FIR.

(3.) The learned MM took cognizance of the offence under Ss. 186, 189 IPC only vide the impugned order. As none of the officials of the department sustained any injury the MM vide order dated 10.07.2009 dropped Ss. 332/353 IPC.