VINOD KAUSHIK Vs. MADAN LAL ARORA & ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant has preferred the present appeal against the order dated 21.08.2015 passed by the Special Judge, P.C Act, CBI-03, Rohini Courts, New Delhi in an application filed by him under section 340 of the Cr.P.C., 1973 alleging that deliberately wrong statement was made by the respondents in Crl. Rev.10/2015, whereby the application was rejected and the appellant was saddled with a cost of Rs. 20,000/-, which was required to be deposited before the Trial Court within one week from the date of passing of the order failing which the Trial Court was directed to recover the same from the appellant as fine under the provisions of the Cr.P.C.

(2.) The respondents had filed a revision petition vide Crl. Rev.10/2015 against the order dated 15.01.2013 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Rohini Courts, Delhi in Complaint Case No. 791/1/20/9/2010 whereby they were summoned for trial for offences under Sections 384 and 506(1) read with Section 34 of the IPC whereas another co-accused namely SI Sunil Kumar was summoned for trial for offence under Section 384 read with Section 107 IPC and Section 506(1) IPC.

(3.) In the complaint referred to above lodged by the appellant, it was alleged that the respondents committed trespass in his property and thereafter committed theft of the original property documents from property bearing No.WZ-472/343, Srinagar, Shakur Basti. It was also alleged by the appellant that FIR No. 82/2008 (P.S.Saraswati Vihar) was registered on his complaint. During the course of investigation of the aforesaid FIR, the appellant was called by the IO of the case namely SI Sunil Kumar at Saraswati Vihar police station for submitting certain documents. There, it has been alleged, the appellant was forced to enter into a settlement with the respondents under the veiled threat that if he did not settle the dispute, he would be arrested in connection with FIR No. 68/2008 in which he was made accused at the instance of the respondents. Out of fear, the appellant is said to have signed the compromise deed and his son was forced to give six postdated cheques to the respondents, who later encashed one of those cheques. The appellant alleged that he was forced to surrender his passport to the respondents as security.