SH. DHANI RAM MEHTO vs SH. HARNAM SINGH & ORS.

Judgment text excerpt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment delivered on:27.06.2025 + CRL.A. 797/2023 SH. DHANI RAM MEHTO ..... Appellant versus SH. HARNAM SINGH & ORS. ..... Respondents Advocates who appeared in this case: For the Appellant : Mr. Manoranjan and Ms. Aditi Ajmera, Advocates For the Respondent : Mr. Ravi Sharma, SPP for the CBI with Mr. Swapnil Choudhary, Mr. Ishann Bhardwaj, Mr. Shivam Mishra and Ms. Madhulika Rai Sharma, Advocates for CBI. Mr. Vivek Kadyan, Advocate for R-5 CORAM HON’BLE MR JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN JUDGMENT 1. The present appeal has been filed under Section 341 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (‘CrPC’) challenging the order dated 17.07.2023 (‘impugned order’), passed by the learned Special Judge, Rouse Avenue Courts Complex, New Delhi, in Case No. MISC DJ ASJ 148/2023. 2. By the impugned order, the learned Special Judge dismissed the application filed by the appellant under Section 340 of the CrPC and Signature Not Verified Signed By:KAMALDEEP KAUR CRL.A. 797/2023 Page 1 of 18 Signing Date:30.06.2025 18:16:56 Section 195 CrPC read with Sections 193, 195, 196, 204 and 211 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’) and Section 120B of the IPC. 3. The brief facts of the case are as follows: 3.1. On 16.03.2017, the complainant Vakeel Ahmed/ Respondent No.5 made a complaint alleging that he required a ‘No Dues certificate’ against the property bearing no. 47-A, Ram Bagh Road, Azad Market, Delhi-06 from the DDA and in lieu of issuing the same, the appellant (AD, Damage Department, Room No. 14A, DDA Vikas Sadan, INA, New Delhi) and the accused Satvir, who was working under the appellant, had demanded a bribe of ₹5,000/- from the complainant. Verification of the aforesaid complaint was conducted on 16.03.2017 and the same confirmed the demand of ₹4,000/-