Delhi District Court
1 Vinod Kumar vs . Ram Dhan Etc. on 21 November, 2014
1 Vinod Kumar Vs. Ram Dhan etc.
CR No: 06/2014
IN THE COURT OF SH. ALOK AGARWAL
SPECIAL JUDGE, PC ACT, CBI
DWARKA COURTS; NEW DELHI
Sh. Vinod Kumar
Proprietor of
M/s Rose Enterprises
At 4, Chaudhary Colony
Gurgaon, Haryana.
............... Revisionist
Versus
1. Sh. Ram Dhan
S/o Sh. Balu
R/o Village & Post Jhul Jhulli
New Delhi.
2. Sh. Krishan Kumar
S/o Sh. Nafe Singh
R/o Village Ghuman Hera
New Delhi.
3. Sh. Sarvan
S/o Sh. Dungal
R/o Village Ghuman Hera
New Delhi.
........Respondents
CR No. 06/14
Date of Institution 14.10.2014
Police Station Jaffarpur Kalan
Reserved for orders on 20.11.2014
Judgment announced on 21.11.2014
CR No: 06/2014 Page 1 of 6 D.O.O. 21.11.2014
2 Vinod Kumar Vs. Ram Dhan etc.
CR No: 06/2014
JUDGMENT
1. By way of this revision petition, the Revisionist Vinod Kumar has impugned the order dated 23.10.2013 passed by Ld. MM summoning him and two other persons namely Krishan Kumar and Sarvan for offences under Sections 420/406/120B/506/34 IPC.
2. The proceedings before the Ld. Trial Court commenced with a complaint case registered as CC No. 20/1 filed by Shri Ram Dhan ( hereinafter referred to as complainant) against Krishan Kumar, Saravan and one M/s Rose Enterprises (through its proprietor/partner). The allegation was that on the inducement made by said Krishan Kumar and Sarvan, the complainant sold his agricultural land and agreed to purchase a shop/plot in village Ghatta, Faridabad Gurgaon Road, Haryana. After selling of the agricultural land, the complainant issued a bearer cheque for Rs. 10 lacs drawn on Allahabad Bank, Ghumanhera and handed over the same to above said two persons for investing the money in the said property. However, despite repeated reminders, no title documents of the property were shown to him and no sale deed or any transfer documents were executed. On making enquiry, the complainant found that the cheque had been encashed in favour of M/s Rose Enterprises of which, CR No: 06/2014 Page 2 of 6 D.O.O. 21.11.2014 3 Vinod Kumar Vs. Ram Dhan etc. CR No: 06/2014 the said Krishan Kumar and Sarvan claimed to be the owners. It is also alleged that on the repeated asking of the complainant, the said Krishan Kumar and Sarvan refused to return the amount and also threatened to kill him.
3. In pre summoning evidence, the complainant examined himself as CW1 and reiterated his allegations on oath. CW2 Ct. Budh Ram proved an entry of the receipt of a complaint from the complainant at DCP Office ( SW), District Dwarka. CW5 Ct. Surender Kumar proved an entry of a receipt of similar complaint at PS Jaffarpur Kalan. CW3 Halka Patwai proved the khatoni showing the sale of agricultural land measuring 20 Bigha and 4 Biswas by the complainant. CW4 Rajendra Kapoor from Allahabad Bank proved the encashment of cheque no. 019903 dated 24.08.2007 for a sum of Rs. 10 lacs. It was CW6 Saurab Jain of HDFC bank who proved that the said cheque was encashed in favour of Rose Enterprises and also brought the account opening form and the annexed documents in respect of Rose Enterprises which showed the Revisionist, herein i.e. Vinod Kumar, to be its proprietor.
4. It was on the basis of above elaborate pre summoning evidence that the Ld. MM passed the impugned order summoning the present revisionist Vinod CR No: 06/2014 Page 3 of 6 D.O.O. 21.11.2014 4 Vinod Kumar Vs. Ram Dhan etc. CR No: 06/2014 Kumar along with other two named persons Krishan Kumar and Sarvan.
5. The present revision petition has been filed by Vinod Kumar arraying the complainant Ram Dhan as Respondent no. 1 and Krishan Kumar and Sarvan as Respondent no.2 and 3 respectively. An application for condonation of delay in filing the revision petition has also been filed along with it.
6. Trial Court Record was called and I have perused the same and have also heard Sh. Vikas Tanwar, Advocate for the Revisionist.
7. On the point of delay of about 350 days, Ld. Counsel has argued that after passing of the summoning order, the summons in the case were never served upon the Revisionist and it was only on otherwise coming to know of the pendency of the complaint , the petition has been filed within three days.
8. On perusing the Trial Court Record in this regard, I find that after passing of the summoning order dated 23.10.2013, summons sent to the Revisionist were not received back on few occasions and thereafter, were served by way of affixation at A61, first floor, Kamla Nagar, Delhi. On the non appearance of the revisionist in response to the affixation, bailable warrants were issued and when it was reported on the bailable warrants that he CR No: 06/2014 Page 4 of 6 D.O.O. 21.11.2014 5 Vinod Kumar Vs. Ram Dhan etc. CR No: 06/2014 had left the address 23 years back, proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. was ordered to be published.
9. The above position does support the stand of the revisionist that he, now being a resident of 4, Chaudhary Colony, Gurgaon, Haryana did not personally receive the summons in this case. I am, therefore, inclined to condone the delay in filing the present revision petition.
10. However, I find from the lengthy revision petition and upon hearing arguments of Ld. Counsel that the revisionist has no tenable grounds to challenge the impugned order. Pages 4 to 23 of his revision petition merely reproduce the complaint made by respondent no. 1 before the Ld. Trial Court. In the remaining paragraphs, he has taken two inconsistent stands. One, as mentioned in para XVI that he had indeed entered into a deal with the complainant through the said Krishan Kumar and Sarvan, but that was for a different property. He admits the receipt of Rs. 10 lac from the complainant but has raised a defence that the same was forfeited due to non payment of remaining amount by the complainant. In the later paragraphs No. 17 & 18, he has on the other hand, stated that no direct allegations had been made by the complainant against him and that he was not involved in the alleged deal.
11. In respect of both above stands taken by the CR No: 06/2014 Page 5 of 6 D.O.O. 21.11.2014 6 Vinod Kumar Vs. Ram Dhan etc. CR No: 06/2014 Revisionist, it can only be said that they may at the most be defences available to the revisionist at an appropriate stage of the trial. None of what he has claimed was, or could have been before the Ld. Trial Court while the impugned order was passed.
12. In my considered view, the impugned order of summoning is a very reasoned order passed after duly considering the whole pre summoning evidence recorded in the trial court. Infact on the basis of the pre summoning evidence on record, no other view than the one taken by the Ld. Trial Court would have been possible.
13. I do not , therefore, find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order ever so as to issue notice in this revision petition. The revision petition is accordingly, dismissed.
14. A copy of this order along with Trial Court Record be sent back to the Trial Court so that the matter gets taken up on the date already fixed by Ld. Trial Court i.e. 28.11.2014. The revision petition file be consigned to record room.
Announced in the open ( ALOK AGARWAL)
Court on 21.11.2014 Special Judge, PC Act CBI
Dwarka Courts, New Delhi.
CR No: 06/2014 Page 6 of 6 D.O.O. 21.11.2014