Section of 482 Cr.P.C. could be invoked where allegations made and evidence collected in support do not disclose commission of an offence: High Court of Delhi

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI IN THE MATTER OF: T. HARISH KUMAR STATE NCT OF DELHI CRL.M.C. 3467 2019 Date of Decision: 12.01.2022 Petitioner Through: Mr. Kailash Vasudev Sr. Advocate with Mr. Navneet Dugar Advocate Through: Mr. Hirein Sharma APP for State with SI Harshvardhan PS Vivek Vihar ..... Respondent HON BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR OHRI VIA VIDEO CONFERENCING) MANOJ KUMAR OHRI J.By way of the present petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. the petitioner has sought quashing of FIR No.349 2018 registered under Section 188 IPC at Police Station Vivek Vihar Delhi arising out of Complaint Case No.1256 2019 and consequential proceedings including the charge sheet and the order dated 20.03.2019 passed by the learned CMM Shahdara District Karkardooma Courts Delhi vide which cognizance of the offence was taken. Brief facts as mentioned in the petition are: The petitioner alongwith his wife is the joint owner of flat property bearing No. A 40 Vivek Vihar Phase II 2nd Floor Delhi 110095 hereinafter referred to as „the flat‟). ii) Vide registered Rent Deed dated 03.05.2018 the petitioner and his wife had rented out the flat to Leela Ambience Delhi Convention Hotel hereinafter referred to as „the Hotel‟) acting through its Authorized Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SANGEETA ANAND Signing Date:15.01.2022 Page 1 of 6 Signatory Ms. Parul Jain for a period of 36 months initially. The flat was rented out for Residential purpose i.e. for accommodation of lady staff members of the Hotel exclusively and for no other purpose. Subsequent to execution of the aforesaid Rent Deed the Hotel vide letter dated 25.06.2018 had provided a list of 8 persons to the petitioner who were their employees and were to occupy the flat. Alongwith the list duly filled tenant verification forms of those persons were also handed over. On execution of the Rent Deed the petitioner forwarded the aforesaid forms to the concerned Police Station which were duly received therein on 29.06.2018 and 02.07.2018. iv) On 05.07.2018 a complaint came to be filed on behalf of the residents occupying other floors of the property bearing No. A 40 Vivek Vihar Phase II Delhi 110095 to the effect that the occupants of the flat used to come late in the night and were a source of disturbance and security concerns to the complainants as main entrance doors of the property would sometimes be left open in late night. On becoming aware of the concerns shown by the other occupants of the property building the petitioner immediately sent a notice to the Hotel on 09.07.2018 seeking to terminate the tenancy and asking that peaceful possession of the flat be handed over back to him and his wife. In pursuance of the aforesaid notice the vacant possession of the flat was handed over by the Hotel to the petitioner on 10.08.2018. In between however on 16.07.2018 the present FIR came to be registered on the complaint of Head Constable Kapil Kumar alleging that during spot inspection two ladies namely Bhadri Maya Gurang and Rinchen Lhamo were found to be tenants of the flat in respect of whom no police verification had been carried out in terms of the order No.7308 7407 R ACP Vivek Vihar Delhi dated 11.12.2017. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SANGEETA ANAND Signing Date:15.01.2022 Page 2 of 6 3. Mr. Kailash Vasudev learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner while referring to the contents of the Rent Deed submits that the flat was rented out to the Hotel for the purpose of accommodation of its lady staff. He further submits that in pursuance of the rent agreement a list of 8 persons alongwith their tenant verification forms was forwarded by the Hotel to the petitioner which documents were duly submitted to the concerned Police Station for verification on 29.06.2018 and 02.07.2018. He also submits that as per the information disclosed by the occupants of the flat only the 8 persons named in the letter dated 25.06.2018 of the Hotel were residing in the flat. Learned Senior Counsel has submitted that on becoming aware of the issues faced by the other residents of the property building the petitioner vide notice dated 09.07.2018 immediately terminated the tenancy and sought vacant possession of the flat which was delivered on 10.08.2018. He further submitted that on 16.07.2018 the petitioner had also given copies of the Rent Deed the tenant verification forms as well as the notice dated 09.07.2018 to the concerned SHO. Lastly it is submitted that neither were the aforesaid two ladies tenants of the petitioner nor did Constable Sanjeev Kumar and or Head Constable Kapil Kumar meet him on 16.07.2018 at 7:30 p.m. as alleged. Learned APP for the State on the other hand has opposed the petition. He submitted that the petitioner had rented out the flat without getting requisite police verification done and thus had violated the order No.7308 7407 R ACP Vivek Vihar Delhi dated 11.12.2017. I have heard learned counsels for the parties and have also gone through the Trial Court Record which was requisitioned on the previous A plain reading of the FIR in question would show that the same was registered in furtherance of Head Constable Kapil Kumar‟s visit to the flat Page 3 of 6 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SANGEETA ANAND Signing Date:15.01.2022 on 16.07.2018 at about 7:30 p.m. It was stated in the FIR that the Head Constable alongwith Constable Sanjeev Kumar had met the petitioner who stated that two ladies namely Bhadri Maya Gurang and Rinchen Lhamo were his tenants in respect of whom necessary police verification had not been carried out. It was also mentioned that the petitioner himself resided at property bearing No. 89 Kiran Vihar 3rd Floor Delhi 110092 and that he was aware of the order dated 11.12.2017 but could not get the verification done out of greed thereby violating the said order. On the basis of the aforesaid the FIR was registered on 16.07.2018 and the charge sheet came to be forwarded two days later i.e. on 18.07.2018 without carrying out any further investigation. Insofar as the submission of the learned Senior Counsel is concerned that in terms of the Rent Deed it was the responsibility of the Hotel to provide to the petitioner a list of the occupants alongwith their duly filled tenant verification forms it is noted that vide letter dated 25.06.2018 a list of 8 persons occupants alongwith their tenant verification forms was sent by the Hotel to the petitioner. It is an admitted case that the aforesaid 8 tenant verification forms were duly sent by the petitioner for verification to the concerned police station on 29.06.2018 and 02.07.2018. Further in the FIR and the statement of Constable Sanjeev Kumar recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. there is not a whisper as to whether any verification was conducted with respect to those 8 tenant verification forms. The FIR is also silent as to on what basis the complainant Head Constable Kapil Kumar came to the conclusion that the two ladies namely Bhadri Maya Gurang and Rinchen Lhamo were tenants at the flat whose tenant verification was not done in terms of the order dated 11.12.2017. Admittedly the complainant had visited the flat on 16.07.2018 for the first time but he neither collected any material to show that the Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SANGEETA ANAND Signing Date:15.01.2022 Page 4 of 6 aforesaid two ladies were tenants of the petitioner nor recorded statements of any other occupant to the effect. On the contrary the complainant stated in the FIR that on account of his greed for rent the petitioner had not gotten the police verification done with respect to the aforesaid two ladies. 10. A reading of the Rent Deed would show that the monthly rent in respect of the flat was fixed and it was upto the Hotel to place its lady staff members in the flat as occupants. In fact the petitioner was not even a resident of the property building of which the flat is a part. 11. Further there is no document relating to the aforesaid two ladies on the record in the form of any ID card residential proof to show that they were tenants at the flat. Neither the statements of the aforesaid two ladies nor the statement of any other occupant of the building or the security guard was recorded. Mere presence of the aforesaid ladies in the flat even if proved by no stretch of imagination can form the basis to establish that they were tenants. Suffice it to say the charge sheet in the present case came to be filed hurriedly within two days of the registration of the FIR without proper investigation. 12. Based on the foregoing this Court is of the view that there is no material on record to support the allegation that the two ladies namely Bhadri Maya Gurang and Rinchen Lhamo were tenants at the flat whose police verification was not done in terms of the aforementioned order. 13. The Supreme Court in State of Haryana and Others v. Bhajan Lal and Others reported as 1992 Supp SCC 335 while summarizing the principles of law governing the exercise of the inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to prevent abuse of the process of Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice has held that such power could be invoked to bring an end the criminal prosecution in cases where “the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SANGEETA ANAND Signing Date:15.01.2022 Page 5 of 6 collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused”. 14. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case and the exposition of law outlined hereinabove this Court is of the considered opinion that the ingredients of the offence alleged are not made out against the petitioner. Consequently the petition is allowed and the FIR and all other consequential proceedings are quashed. 15. With the above directions the petition is disposed of. 16. A copy of this order be communicated to the concerned Trial Court. JANUARY 12 2022 MANOJ KUMAR OHRI) JUDGE Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SANGEETA ANAND Signing Date:15.01.2022 Page 6 of 6 

Summary: The exercise of the inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., to prevent abuse of the process of Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice could be invoked to bring an end to the criminal prosecution in cases where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. These were stated by High Court of Delhi, consisting Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri in the case of T. Harish Kumar vs. State of NCT Delhi [CRL.M.C. 3467/2019] on 12.01.2022. The facts of the case are that petitioner, alongwith his wife was the joint owner of flat property. The petitioner and his wife had rented out the flat to Leela Ambience Delhi Convention Hotel acting through its Authorized Signatory Ms. Parul Jain, for a period of 36 months initially. The flat was rented out for Residential purpose, i.e. for accommodation of lady staff members of the Hotel exclusively, and for no other purpose. Subsequent to execution of the aforesaid Rent Deed, the Hotel had provided a list of 8 persons to the petitioner who were their employees and were to occupy the flat. Alongwith the list, duly filled tenant verification forms of those persons were also handed over and police verification was done. Thereafter, a complaint was filed on behalf of the residents occupying other floors of the property that the occupants of the flat used to come late in the night and were a source of disturbance and security concerns. On becoming aware of the concerns, the petitioner immediately sent a notice to the Hotel seeking to terminate the tenancy and asking that peaceful possession of the flat be handed over back to him and his wife. In pursuance of the aforesaid notice, the vacant possession of the flat was handed over by the Hotel to the petitioner. In between however, on 16.07.2018, the present FIR came to be registered on the complaint of Head Constable Kapil Kumar alleging that during spot inspection, two ladies namely Bhadri Maya Gurang and Rinchen Lhamo were found to be tenants of the flat, in respect of whom no police verification had been carried out. The Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the flat was rented out to the Hotel for the purpose of accommodation of its lady staff. He further submits that in pursuance of the rent agreement, a list of 8 persons, along with their tenant verification forms was forwarded by the Hotel to the petitioner. The documents were duly submitted to the concerned Police Station for verification. He also submitted that as per the information disclosed by the occupants of the flat, only the 8 persons named in the letter were residing in the flat. On becoming aware of the issues faced by the other residents of the property/building, the petitioner immediately terminated the tenancy and sought vacant possession of the flat which was delivered on 10.08.2018. He further submitted that the petitioner had also given copies of the Rent Deed, the tenant verification forms as well as the notice dated 09.07.2018 to the concerned SHO. Lastly, it was submitted that neither were the aforesaid two ladies tenants of the petitioner, nor did Constable Sanjeev Kumar and/or Head Constable Kapil Kumar meet him on 16.07.2018 at 7:30 p.m. as alleged. The Counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, opposed the petition. He submitted that the petitioner had rented out the flat without getting requisite police verification done, and thus, had violated the order No.7308-7407/R-ACP/Vivek Vihar Delhi dated 11.12.2017.