B.K. RAMESH SHAH Vs. B.K. NARAYANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that complainant -B.K. Naryani, aged about 60 years, resident of Prajapita Brahama Kumari Ishvariya Vishva Vidyalya, Gau Shala Market, Bhiwani, Tehsil and District Bhiwani had filed a complaint under Sections 499 and 500 IPC against accused B.K. Ramesh Shah, B.K. Hardya Mohini and B.K. Anjali on the averments that complainant had been working as Center Incharge of Bhiwani Branch; the complainant had taken the Gau Shala property on rent in the name of Prajapita Brahama Kumari Ishvariya Vishva Vidyala after making payment in advance i.e. Rs. 1,20,000/- as construction loan and maintained that property with the financial help of her father and brother; accused B.K. Ramesh Shah had issued a letter dated 3.12.2004 to B.K. Hardiya Mohini of Delhi Zone, Incharge stating that the complainant was physically not fit due to illness, therefore, she must be provided with an Assistant to look after the matters concerning Bhiwani trust branch, wrongly stating that the complainant had visited the office of Tehsildar, VPO Bound Kalan, Tehsil and District Bhiwani to get the trust property situated at VPO Bound Kalan transferred in the name of a third person/to get the authority letter in favour of Dharampal and Anita; a resolution was passed to assist B.K. Naryani and to take care of the other matters regarding trust on 2.12.2010 in the headquarter at Mount Abu; accordingly B.K. Anjali was appointed as Incharge Bahadurgarh to assist the complainant; B.K. Anjali after appointment made a complaint dated 16.1.2011 signed by more than 60 supporters in the City Police Station, Bhiwani; the signatures of supporters are without address and are forged; in that complaint, the present complainant was termed as a culprit alleging that property of trust situated at Raj an Pana, Bhiwani had been sold by the complainant; the allegations were wrong and defamatory; the intention of the accused was to grab the property of the trust. The complainant prayed that the accused be summoned and tried for commission of offence under Sections 499 and 500 IPC.

(2.) During her preliminary evidence, the complainant got her statement recorded as CW1 and in addition to that examined Umesh as CW2 and Jagdish Singh as CW3. With that her preliminary evidence got closed. Thereafter, the complaint was sent under Section 202 Cr.P.C. for further inquiry but the local police reported that the allegations levelled by the complainant against the accused were not true, however the matter was of civil nature.

(3.) After hearing arguments, learned trial Magistrate dismissed the complaint vide order dated 6.5.2013. The operative part of the order is contained in para No.8 of the order, which for ready reference is being reproduced as under: