RAJ GUPTA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Invoking the extra-ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India r/w Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as "the Code") FIR No.407/98 dated 22.5.1998 alleging offences under Section 341/448/34 Indian Penal Code registered at Police Station Defence Colony, New Delhi is sought to be quashed in this writ petition.

(2.) A few facts, emerging from the record, necessary to state are that on 22.5.1998 respondent No.2 (Deepak Anand alias Deepak Jha) filed a complaint in P.S. Defence Colony, New Delhi alleging offences under Section 341/448/34 Indian Penal Code stated that at about 10 A.M. petitioner No.1 (Raj Gupta) along with six other accomplice came to his Defence Colony home and batral into the house A-263, Defence Colony, Ground Floor and started beating mercilessly and dragged him out of the home; that even his cellular phone was also taken away by force and locked the room; that police was contacted on Telephone No.100; that all fled away; that when the complainant was working, five other persons came and tried to pull him in the car on the pretext that Raj Gupta wants to see him and when the complainant provoked they again started using force; that the complainant was working with petitioner No.2 (Mrs.Amita Gupta) who is an Advocate; the complainant had a six months' independent agreement; on telephone she threatened that if he does not vacate the place she will get him killed; that the complainant was terminated from his job in this month. In this complaint the prayer is that safety of the house and person of the petitioner be ensured besides the police protection.

(3.) In the petition, it is the say of the petitioners that Petitioner No.2, an Advocate had employed respondent No.2 (complainant) as Trainee Advocate on his request on 4.4.1998; that Mr.Vinay, Assistant Registrar of the High Court complained to petitioner No.2 about the misbehaviour and threats given by respondent No.2 while removing the defects/ office objections of a matter on 18.4.1998 and immediately on the morning of 20.4.1998, petitioner No.2 terminated the services of respondent No.2 and handed him a cheque for Rs.2,500.00 that petitioner No.2 has her office at 100, Sukhdev Vihar, New Delhi and in one room on the ground floor at A-263, Defence Colony, New Delhi, which is owned by the company wherein petitioner No.1 is the Director; that on 22.5.1998 petitioner No.2 had got her matter listed before Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh and she had left for Chandigarh on 21.5.1998; that petitioner No.1 was passing at about 10 A.M. through A- 263, Defence Colony, New Delhi and found respondent No.2 standing near the gate. Since the services of respondent No.2 had been terminated on 20.4.1998, petitioner No.1 inquired from respondent No.2 as to why he was standing there and stopped him from entering the premises; that respondent No.2 started abusing petitioner No.1 and threatened that he would bring 500 persons and not leave the premises without taking ransom of Rs.5.00 lakhs. Petitioner No.1 lodged complaint at 11.30 A.M. on 22.5.1998 with the S.H.O. P.S. Defence Colony; that respondent No.2 lodged FIR No.407/98 at 2.30 P.M. in P.S. Defence Colony; that FIR No.407/98 does not disclose the charges as alleged therein; that respondent No.2 does not have any right to enter the premises A-263, Defence Colony, New Delhi as he is no more in the employment of petitioner No.2; that petitioner No.1 being a Director of the company to which the property belongs, has every right to stop respondent No.2 from entering the premises as he was no longer in the services of petitioner No.2; that petitioner No.1 is the owner of entire building bearing No.A-263, Defence Colony and he had allowed petitioner No.2 to use only one room as her office she being his wife; that petitioner No.1 can not be said to have committed house trespass of the building in question of which he is the owner in possession of the entire building but it is respondent No.2 who has committed the offence under Section 448 IPC. On these grounds, FIR No.407/98 dated 22.5.1998 for the offence under Section 341/448/34 Indian Penal Code registered at P.S. Defence Colony, New Delhi is sought to be quashed.