MUNISH JAIN Vs. STATE OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Crpc) seeking the quashing of the FIR No. 133/2003 registered at P. S. Vasant kunj, New Delhi under Sections 506, 341 read with Section 34 IPC and all the proceedings consequent thereto.

(2.) THE FIR resulted in filing of a charge sheet and thereafter the following order framing of charge was passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate ( MM )on 11th August 2006: i, Vrinda Kumari, MM, N. Delhi, do hereby charge you Munish Jain s/o Sh. B. P. Mittal as under: that on 28. 2. 03 at about 9. 35 p. m. near Masoodpur, Flyover, you along with three other accomplishes in furtherance of your common intention committed criminal intimidation by extended threat to the complainant Ms. Madhulika Jain with intent to kill her and her brother, Rajiv Jain, if she does not withdraw the case FIR No. 440/02 u/s 498a/306 IPC, P. S. Vasant Kunj wherein you are also one of the accused and complainant is legally entitled to pursue that case being a complainant and as such committed offence punishable u/s 506/34 IPC and within my cognizance. Secondly on the said date, time and place, you along with three accomplishes also wrongfully restrained the complainant and as such committed an offence punishable u/s 341/34 IPC and with my cognizance.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the Petitioner submits that there are numerous illegalities that vitiate the criminal proceedings and that this case calls for interference by this Court in exercise of its powers under Section 482 Crpc. In the first place he points out that the FIR is registered on 5th March, 2003, against the column concerning the date of incident the word yesterday (i. e. 4th March, 2003) at about 9. 30 pm is indicated. He points that at a subsequent stage, the prosecution decided to change the date of occurrence from 4th March, 2003 to 28th February, 2003 since it realized that the shops were closed on 4th march, 2003 and the complainant s version was that while she was returning from her shop after closing it she was criminally intimidated by the Petitioners. Secondly, he points that the site plan of the place of occurrence was prepared on 1st March, 2003 i. e. prior to the date of the registration of the FIR on 5th march, 2003. His submission is that it is inconceivable that an investigation was already underway even without the registration of an FIR. Thirdly, he points out that the place of occurrence is shown as two kilometers east from the residence of the complainant whereas the site plan shows it to be near the flyover.