Delhi District Court
Vikas Khanna vs State on 21 November, 2016
:: 1 ::
IN THE COURT OF SH. GURDEEP SINGH,
SPECIAL JUDGE (PC ACT), CBI05 PATIALA HOUSE
COURTS, NEW DELHI.
C.R. No. : 8836/2016
Vikas Khanna
S/o Sh. Vijay Khanna
R/o 9407, DLFIV, Gurgaon
Haryana .... Revisionist
Vs.
State ... Respondent
Date of Institution : 26.09.2016 Date of arguments : 18.11.2016 Date of pronouncement : 21.11.2016 O R D E R
1. Vide this order, I shall dispose of the revision petition preferred against the order dated 24.06.2016 passed by learned MM whereby, cognizance was taken against revisionist and he was summoned.
CR No. 8836/16 Vikas Khanna Vs. State. . Page No. 1 of 9:: 2 ::
2. The brief facts are that on the directions of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, complaint was given to SHO, Tilak Marg on which, case was registered. Hon'ble High Court had directed to institute proceedings against Vijay Khanna for submitting forged banker's cheque. Vijay Khanna had appeared before Hon'ble High Court in bail application no. 706/14; on 28.10.2015, Vijay Khanna had handed over banker's cheque dated 26.10.2015 in the sum of Rs.53 lacs, drawn on Citi Bank, in favour of Registrar General of High Court of Delhi. The said banker's cheque on presentation before UCO Bank was returned unpaid with reason "Chq is forged/ fake/ stolen".
3. During the course of investigation, documents were collected from Citi Bank, Jeevan Bharti Building, Connaught Place Branch vide which, Legal Manager informed that the MICR code and cheque number were part of account no. 5437706222 which was in the name of revisionist Vikas Khanna. During investigation, revisionist was called by IO for investigation. He disclosed that he had opened the said account with Citi Bank in the year 2010 for CR No. 8836/16 Vikas Khanna Vs. State. . Page No. 2 of 9 :: 3 ::
the purpose of credit of his salary, as he was working as Manager with Rams Management Company. He further disclosed that he had handed over the cheque book to his father and only his salary used to be credited in the said account and he never used the said cheque book. After thorough investigation, chargesheet was filed in the Court against Vijay Khanna and the revisionist was kept in column 12 of the chargesheet.
4. Thereafter, learned MM vide her order dated 24.06.2016 on finding the sufficient material and considering the fact that the cheque was issued from the account of the revisionist, summoned him. Hence, the present revision petition.
5. Notice of the revision petition was issued to State/ respondent no. 1 only. I have heard Sh. Vikas Sharma, Advocate for revisionist and Sh. Arun Kumar, learned Addl. PP for State/ respondent no. 1 and have gone through the record. Trial court record was also summoned which has also been gone through.
6. The impugned order is challenged on the ground that there CR No. 8836/16 Vikas Khanna Vs. State. . Page No. 3 of 9 :: 4 ::
is no incriminating evidence against the revisionist during the course of investigation and there is not a whisper against him in the entire chargesheet except that the cheque book belonged to the revisionist. It is submitted that as per the law pronounced by Hon'ble Supreme Court and Hon'ble High Court, it was held in number of cases that if the material on record give rise to some suspicion and not grave suspicion, the charge should not be framed. It is further submitted that it is alleged in the chargesheet that Vijay Khanna, father of revisionist had removed one cheque from the cheque book of the revisionist and misused the same as banker's cheque and unless and until it is established that the cheque was allegedly removed by Vijay Khanna from the cheque book of the revisionist with his connivance and consent, no case is made out against the revisionist.
7. It is further submitted that the revisionist had been living with his wife and children in the joint family with his parents. The revisionist had no reason to suspect his father regarding the removal of cheque from his cheque book. The revisionist came to know about the cheque having been CR No. 8836/16 Vikas Khanna Vs. State. . Page No. 4 of 9 :: 5 ::
removed from his cheque book only when he was summoned by IO during the course of investigation. It is further submitted that revisionist cannot be made a scapegoat just because he is son of accused Vijay Khanna. It is further submitted that the revisionist is well educated and law abiding citizen.
8. The other facts are not in dispute that Vijay Khanna had played fraud upon Hon'ble High Court and submitted a fake banker's cheque and obtained the interim relief. It is also not in dispute that subsequently, Vijay Khanna himself had personally inspected the record of the Court and removed forged banker's cheque and notings of the registry. As per the chargesheet, IO during investigation found that the MICR code and cheque number 898340 are part of cheque book series 898331 to 898345 issued against account no. 5437706222 held in the name of revisionist. No complaint regarding loss of cheque was received in the bank. The cheque book was delivered by hand to the account holder at the time of opening of account and the account was found in the name of son of Vijay Khanna, that is, revisionist. Vijay Khanna was arrested and he made a disclosure CR No. 8836/16 Vikas Khanna Vs. State. . Page No. 5 of 9 :: 6 ::
statement wherein, he stated that he had old cheque book of his son which was not being used by him; he removed one cheque and prepared the banker's cheque in the name of Registrar General, Delhi High Court and forged the signatures. He also stated that he had burnt remaining cheque book of his son.
9. Revisionist was also interrogated wherein, he stated that he lives in the joint family with his father and works as Director in MCI Management India Pvt. Limited, Sector 44, Gurgaon, Haryana. In the year 2010, he started working as Director with G2, Rams Management Company, Gurgaon, Haryana and opened an account with Citi Bank and was handed over cheque book containing fifteen cheques; he handed over the said cheque book to his father; in the said account, only his salary used to be credited; he had not used the said cheque book and the same remained with his father. On the basis of the same, the revisionist was not sent up for trial and was kept in column no. 12 of the chargesheet. The investigation carried out contains the confessional statement of Vijay Khanna which is not admissible in evidence and the statement made by the CR No. 8836/16 Vikas Khanna Vs. State. . Page No. 6 of 9 :: 7 ::
revisionist before the IO. The law is well settled that at the stage of summoning, the court is only required to see whether there are sufficient grounds to proceed against the accused persons. It is also well settled that on the basis of material on record, learned MM can summon the accused even if he is not sent up for trial by Investigating Agency. In the present case, learned MM has come to the conclusion that the cheque book was in the name of revisionist and the said cheque was used for preparation of fake banker's cheque. Admittedly, the revisionist is a person who is working as Director and is well aware of the consequences of leaving the cheque book unattended.
10.It is pertinent to mention herein that vide order dated 20.11.2014, Hon'ble High Court had recorded in its order that learned counsel for Vijay Khanna had made a statement that amount of Rs.53 lacs is to be arranged by his son, that is, the revisionist, who is staying in Philipines. To quote:
".... Mr. Murari Tiwari, Advocate for the petitioners submits that so far the Petitioners have deposited Rs.24 lacs with the Registrar General of this Court and the balance amount of Rs.53 lacs is CR No. 8836/16 Vikas Khanna Vs. State. . Page No. 7 of 9 :: 8 ::
yet to be deposited for which four weeks time is requested. Learned counsel for the Petitioners further submits that this amount of Rs.53 lacs is to be arranged by son of the Petitioners, who is staying in Philipines. ..."
11. Now coming to the submission of learned MM that unless there is grave suspicion, charge cannot be framed. This revision is not preferred at the stage of charge. At the stage of cognizance, the Court is only required to see whether there are sufficient grounds to proceed. In the present case, the banker's cheque which was forged was removed from the cheque book which was issued in the name of the revisionist. Therefore, complicity of revisionist cannot be ruled out and moreover, the revisionist shall have right to address the arguments and take this plea at the stage of charge whether or not there is grave suspicion.
12.As per the discussion above, I am of the opinion that there is no illegality, infirmity and impropriety in the order of learned MM and summoning order is correct. Revision petition is accordingly dismissed. However, nothing mentioned in this order shall tantamount to expression on merit at the stage of charge.
CR No. 8836/16 Vikas Khanna Vs. State. . Page No. 8 of 9:: 9 ::
Trial court record be sent back along with copy of this order.
Revision file be consigned to record room.
Announced in the open court on (GURDEEP SINGH) 21st November, 2016 ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JDUGE SPECIAL JUDGE (PC ACT); CBI05 NEW DELHI/ 21.11.2016 CR No. 8836/16 Vikas Khanna Vs. State. . Page No. 9 of 9