Delhi Court convicts two lawyers for restraining a man in their chamber in Patiala House court

A Delhi Court recently convicted two lawyers in a case dating back to 2003 for illegally restraining a man inside a chamber in the Patiala House court complex and forcing him to sign a promissory note under extortion. [State Vs B. S. Arora & Anr].Metropolitan Magistrate (MM) Kapil Gupta convicted the accused BS Arora and Ajay Srivastava under Sections 341 (wrongful restraint), 384 (extortion), 506 (criminal intimidation) and 34 (acts done by several persons under common intention) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).However, the Court acquitted them of the charge under Section 323 (voluntarily causing hurt)."Prosecution has successfully brought home the guilt of accused B.S. Arora and accused Ajay Srivastava for the offences punishable u/s 341/384/506(Part I)/34 IPC through the testimonies of examined witnesses and further has established the ingredients of offences alleged against the accused in the present matter beyond reasonable doubt," the Court held..Arora and Srivastava were accused of assaulting complainant Naresh Jindal on September 1, 2003 after Jindal had allegedly demanded return of his cheque of ₹80,000 from Srivastava which had been allegedly given for a work related to a gas agency. He was also forced to sign a pronote and his signatures were obtained on two blank papers. On the contrary, the accused claimed that the cheque was given to Srivastava by Jindal as legal fee for Arora in respect of a case related to the death of the complainant's sister-in-law during the opening of one showroom in Noida. A marble slab had fallen on her..After examining the evidence, the Court rejected the argument of the accused that the pronote and the cheque were given to Srivastava on July 26, 2003, in the presence of one Deputy Commissioner of Police Dinesh Gupta. “The existence of pronote and its form is not in dispute. Perusal of the pronote reveals that the same has been executed on 01.09.2003 and thus, there is a contradiction in the stand taken by the accused,” the Court found.The Court also noted that a suggestion on behalf of Arora to the complainant during his cross examination that pronote was given outside a courtroom, was denied by him. It was also suggested on behalf of Srivastava that the pronote was handed over inside the courtroom and then complainant and others had come to the chamber of both the lawyers and had tea and no such incident had taken place.However, the same was also rejected by the Court.“In view of the suggestions put on behalf of the accused, it can be clearly observed that it has been admitted by the accused themselves that the pronote was given on 01.09.2003 and the complainant had also come in the chamber of accused no. 1 [Arora],” the Court said.The Court added that the contradictory stands taken by the accused made their defense untrustworthy. It concluded that the complainant had indeed come to the chamber of the accused and signed the pronote on September 1, 2003..With regard to the claim regarding cheque of Rs ₹80,000, the Court took into account the findings in the 2011 judgment in the Negotiable Instruments (NI) Act case filed by Srivastava against the complainant's wife.The Court said the judge in that case had discredited the version of Srivastava that the cheque had been issued towards payment of legal fee of Arora.Observing that the aforementioned judgment was never challenged, the Court opined it was “unconscionable to believe that a person shall issue a promissory note to the promisee, promising to make a payment on the same day”.Accordingly, it concluded that prosecution has been able to prove that the promissory note could not have been wilfully issued to make payment of an advocate’s fees on the same day as the date of issue of the pronote.The Court also found that prosecution had been able to prove the allegation of extortion beyond doubt as the allegation could not be controverted by the accused persons. However, the Court said no cogent medical documents of alleged hurt could be produced and thus rejected the prosecution case that accused had assaulted the complainant.The Court will hear the accused with regard to the quantum of sentence on October 27. .The complainant in the case was represented by his son, advocate Mridul Jindal. In a blog post, he said he was five years old when the incident against his father took place and decided to become a lawyer after the case dragged on in the court."It marked the end of a long and gruelling journey, but more importantly, it symbolized a victory for justice, perseverance, and the rule of law," he wrote about the decision[Read Judgment]