LALA CHARAT RAM Vs. STATE OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioners pray that the order dated 18.11.2000 summoning the petitioners to face trial for offences under Section 109/120B/339/340/383/503 IPC be set aside and complaint filed by the complainant Bhupendra Singh Chauhan be quashed.

(2.) At the outset, I may note that petitioner No. 1, Lala Charat Ram, impleaded as accused No. 1 has died during pendency of the present petition. Hence, the complain qua him i.e. Lala Charat Ram has abated.

(3.) In his complaint, Bhupendra Singh Chauhan stated that first petitioner Lala Charat Ram was the Chairman of M/s. Shriram Pistons and Rings Ltd. Petitioner No.2 Ashok Kumar Taneja was stated to be the Senior Executive Director of the said company. Petitioner No. 3 R.Shriniwasan was stated to be Executive Director of the company. Petitioner No. 4 Rajeev Sethi was stated to be the Junior Executive Director of the company. Petitioner No. 5 Alok Bhattacharjee was stated to be Assistant General Manager of the company and petitioner No. 6 Ms. Swatantra Wadhwa was stated to be a Senior Assistant in the company. Complainant stated that after being interviewed, he was appointed as an officer on special duty and signed a service bond on 8.9.1994. That he joined the company on 5.10.1994. That the company started discriminating against the complainant and he protested. That the management of the company started acting in a manner which created a hostile work environment for the complainant. The intention was to somehow or other get rid of the complainant. That when everything failed, on 10.12.1998, in furtherance of a conspiracy by the accused persons, Rajeev Sethi, petitioner No. 4 called complainant to his cabin for a meeting at 5.00 P.M. That when he went to the cabin of Rajeev Sethi, petitioners 5 and 6, Alok Bhattacharjee and Swatantra Wadhwa were present in the cabin. They informed that they had discussed the matter with Ashok Taneja and R.Shriniwasan, petitioners 2 and 3 respectively who desired that the complainant should resign. That they told the complainant that they were instructed by petitioner No.1, Lala Charat Ram to ensure that the complainant resigns. That petitioners 4, 5 and 6 told the complainant that if he did not resign, he would be transferred to a far away place and the company might even indict him in false case. That the complainant realized that he was trapped and was being threatened. On the pretext of going out from the room to type the requisite resignation letter, so stating, when he attempted to walk out of the cabin, petitioner No. 4 signaled to petitioner No. 5 and 6 who stood up and came in between the complainant and the door of the cabin thereby preventing the complainant to go out of the cabin. That petitioners 4, 5 and 6 provided a blank sheet of paper to the complainant and made him write a resignation letter and told him to date the same as 28.2.1999. That the complainant was thus forced under threat, illegal confinement and stress to write the resignation letter.