MEENA CHAUDHARY SHARMA Vs. CBI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has filed this petition under Section 482 of the criminal Procedure Code seeking direction to the designate Court to hear the protest petition of the petitioner on merits pursuant to order of this Court. On the complaint of Smt. Rahiman Bai Guddi dated 6th November, 1997 lodged with Police Station Roop Nagar, Delhi a regular case RC. 2 (A)/2001/dad dated 28th February, 2001 under Section 120-B, 193, 506 IPC and Section 15,13 (2)read with 13 (1) (d) of P. C Act, 1988 against Ms. Kulwant Kaur Sidhu, Ravinder godbole, Rajender Prasad Tiwari, Bhim Sen, Matloob Ahmad, Manoj Kumar and Ved prakash Arora was registered. The allegations were that Ms. Kulwant Kaur Sidhu had made illegal attempts of forceful encroachment upon the land of the complainant by forgery and fabrication of documents in order to usurp the land of the complainant. There were allegations of harassment and terrorization of the complainant by all possible means by way of false kalandaras, armed assault and threatening calls.

(2.) A chargesheet was filed on 18th August, 2003 under Section 120-B, 447 and 506 of IPC and Section 13 (2) read with Section 13 (1) (d) of P. C Act, 1988 and substantive offences under Section 13 (2) read with Section 13 (1) (d) of P. C act, 1988 against Ms. Kulwant Kaur Sidhu, Rajender Prasad Tiwari, Bhim Sen, matloob Ahmed and Abrar Hussain. However, it is alleged that during investigation sufficient evidence to launch prosecution had not come on record against Manoj Kumar, Ravinder Godbole and Ved Prakash Arora and therefore, these persons were not made accused. Consequently, against the chargesheet filed by cbi on 18th June, 2003 in the Court of Special Judge, CBI, Patiala House Courts, new Delhi, the daughter of the complainant filed a protest petition on 8th january, 2004

(3.) ON 22nd July, 2004, the Special Judge, CBI, passed an order holding that regarding the protest application it is for the complainant to have proper recourse to law and the appropriate application be filed at appropriate stage of evidence as there is no sufficient evidence to launch prosecution against said three persons. It was also held that in order to assess whether there is sufficient evidence to launch prosecution case against these three persons, the documents which had been filed by the complainant were not to be looked into and the relevancy of those documents has to be appreciated only at the stage of evidence. Against the order dated 22nd July, 2004 of Special Judge, CBI, the criminal revision petition No. 570/2004 under Section 482 of the Criminal procedure Code was filed in this Court, which was disposed of on 17th May, 2006 by a learned Single Judge, sending the matter back to the Court of Special Judge for a fresh consideration of the protest petition dated 8th January, 2004 filed by the petitioner. It was clarified that petitioner shall not be permitted to travel beyond the chargesheet and the documents accompanying the chargesheet or available on record. The order dated 17th May, 2006 is as under:-?this revision petition is directed against the order dated 22. 07. 2004 whereby the protest application moved on behalf of the petitioner, according to the petitioner, was not given due consideration. The basic case of the petitioner is that while certain accused have been chargesheeted for offences under Sections 120-B/447/506 IPC read with Section 13 (2) and 13 (1) (d) of the Prevention of corruption Act, 1988, others, such as Manoj Kumar, Ravinder Godbole and Ved prakash Arora have been shown either in Column No. 2 or not at all although their roles have been described in the chargesheet. At this stage, it is not necessary for me to examine the case in detail. It is sufficient to note that the protest application filed by the complainant be disposed of after giving due consideration to the contentions of the petitioner. She shall, of course, be permitted to rely only on the chargesheet and the documents filed alongwith it. Accordingly, this matter is sent back to the Court of Special Judge, (CBI) for a fresh consideration of the protest petition dated 08. 01. 2004 filed by the petitioner. It is made clear that the petitioner shall not be permitted to travel beyond the charge-sheet and the documents accompanying the chargesheet or available on record. This petition stands disposed off. ?