CRL.M.C.--4060/2019. Case: MANMOHAN SHARMA & ORS. Vs. STATE & ANR.. High Court of Delhi (India)
| Case Number | CRL.M.C.--4060/2019 |
| Citation | NA |
| Judgement Date | December 06, 2019 |
| Court | High Court of Delhi (India) |
$~55 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision:
+ CRL.M.C. 4060/2019 & RL.M.A.33702/2019 & 36891/2019
MANMOHAN SHARMA & ORS. ..... Petitioners
Through Mr. Meet Malhotra, Sr. Adv with
Mr. Kushank Singh, Mr. Abhinav, Mr. Yashovardhan & Mr. Syed Massod, Advocates
versus
STATE & ANR. ..... Respondents Through Mr. K K Ghai, APP for State
SI Dharmender, PS Vasant Kunj (N) Mr. Sunny Sharma & Mr. Rahul Gupta, Advs. for R-2 with R-2 in person
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KUMAR KAIT
J U D G M E N T (ORAL)
-
Vide the present petition, the petitioners seek directions thereby quash the FIR No.576/2016 dated 02.12.2016, registered at P.S. Kunj North, Delhi for the offences punishable under Sections 341/354/354B/509/34 IPC and consequent proceedings therefrom.
-
The case of the petitioners is that they are residents of Pocket-B & C, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi and respondent no.2 complainant in the FIR mentioned above, filed against the petitioners.
per the FIR, it is alleged that on 06.11.2016 at around 08:30 AM, respondent-2 along with her staff went to supervise the distribution magazines in Vasant Kunj. Her staff member, namely; Deepak Chand stopped by the guard at the gate of Pocket A Sector B & C. Accordingly she asked the guard as to why the staff was not being allowed to the magazines. The guard in the meantime called some persons to the Thereafter, her staff was manhandled by all the persons present there they snatched his phone away and threw it on the ground. When protested, she was also manhandled and assaulted by all the persons there, including the petitioners.
-
Mr. Meet Malhotra, learned Senior Advocate appearing for petitioners submits that without appreciating the background and inherent improbable nature of the accusations, an FIR was registered chargesheet was filed subsequently for the offences punishable Sections 323/341/354/354B/509/34 of IPC. The charge sheet does not prima facie disclose the commission of cognizable offence. despite the same, Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate chose to take cognizance the offences as detailed vide order dated 19.09.2018. Moreover, even contents of the charge sheet as well as the FIR are taken at face-value,
do not contain any direct allegations of cognizable offence which has committed by them. FIR is completely false and motivated to silence petitioners who have always been vocal about opposing the distribution "Yellow Pages" in the colony by the respondent No.2 and/or her or agents.
-
It is further submitted that respondent no.2, for a very long time, been indulging in a lot of vexatious correspondence/ complaints concerned police authorities with a view to harass the petitioners so petitioners concede to her illegally untenable demands of supplying distributing the magazines in the Vasant Kunj area. The respondent no.2 had also filed a Writ Petition (Civil) bearing No. 1101/2017, before this wherein she prayed for an order that her magazines are distributed entire Vasant Kunj area and areas in its vicinity, without any hassle. respondent no.2, in the Writ made the following prayer:-
“ Issue appropriate writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to allow the free circulation and distribution of the monthly publication of the petitioner's "Vasant Kunj Informer and Shopper" amongst residents of all sectors of Vasant Kunj every month, unhindered, without any objection or complaint .”
-
The said...
To continue reading
Request your trial