Delhi District Court
Rajesh Aggarwal vs State on 10 May, 2024
IN THE COURT OF DHIRENDRA RANA, SPECIAL JUDGE
(NDPS), NORTH DISTRICT, ROHINI, DELHI
Crl. Appeal no. 207/23
Rajesh Aggarwal
S/o Sh. J.P. Aggarwal
R/o E-4/20C, Ist Floor
Model Town-2, Delhi.
......... Appellant
Versus
1. State
(Govt of NCT of Delhi)
2. a. Sonali Bansal Aggarwal
D/o Sh. Sohan Lal Bansal
W/o Sh. Sachin Raj Aggarwal
b. Rachna Bansal
c. Sohan Lal Bansal
d. Rahul Bansal
All R/o WZ-119, 2nd Floor
Opposite Mata Mandir
Naraina Village, Delhi.
........ Respondents
Date of Institution : 20.09.2023
Date of Reserving the Judgment : 10.05.2024
Judgment Pronounced on : 10.05.2024
JUDGMENT
1. This appeal has been filed by the appellant against the impugned order vide which complaint u/s 203 Cr. PC was dismissed by Ld. MM.
Rajesh Aggarwal Vs State & Ors. Page 1/62. For the sake of convenience, I would be referring appellant as the complainant and the respondents (a) (b) (c) and (d) as proposed accused no. 1, 2, 3 and 4 as per the nomenclature before Ld. Trial Court.
3. The facts of this case have already been enumerated by the Ld. MM in the impugned order and same are not repeated for the sake of brevity.
4. The case of the appellant is that he 'entrusted' some jewellery articles to his daughter-in-law Sonali Bansal Aggarwal with a direction that she may wear the jewellery articles and she had to return back the same as and when required by the complainant. It is submitted that Sonali Bansal Aggarwal left her matrimonial house on 20.03.2020 and she never returned back the 'entrusted' golden articles and thereby, she alongwith other proposed accused persons committed an offence under section 406/34 IPC.
5. The appellant has argued on the lines of his appeal and pressed upon the grounds mentioned in the appeal and gist of the same is that the 'entrusted' golden articles have not been returned back by accused Sonali Bansal Aggarwal. He has relied upon the judgments tiled as Smt. Rashmi Kumar Vs Mahesh Kumar Bhada, AIR Online 1996 SC 699 and Pratibha Rani Vs Suraj Kumar & Anr., 1985 AIR 628.
6. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for respondents has argued that articles which have been declared as 'entrustment' to accused Sonali Bansal Aggarwal are part of her istridhan and no offence is Rajesh Aggarwal Vs State & Ors. Page 2/6 made out against any of the proposed accused persons. It is further submitted that Ld. Trial Court has rightly evaluated the intention of the complainant and passed the impugned order of dismissal of complaint. It is submitted that there is no illegality in the order passed by Ld. MM and the present appeal is devoid of any merits and should be dismissed with heavy cost as same has been filed just to harass the proposed accused persons so that they may not pursue their legal remedies against the complainant and his family members.
7. I have heard the arguments addressed by both the parties, perused the record and also gone through the judgments relied upon by Ld. Counsel for appellant.
8. During the course of pre summoning evidence, the complainant proved a complaint dated 05.10.2020 addressed to Commissioner of Police wherein he stated that he had entrusted his jewellery to accused Sonali Bansal Aggarwal. In this complaint, the date of entrustment is missing. When he appeared before the court as witness CW-1, he again failed to disclose any particular date when the alleged entrustment was done by him. He examined his wife as CW-2 Prabha Aggarwal and surprisingly, she stated that entrustment was done on 05.12.2019 at around 11.00 am. It is highly improbable that complainant, who has claimed that he had 'entrusted' the golden articles to accused Sonali Bansal Aggarwal, is not aware about the exact date of entrustment but his wife is very much sure about that. It reflects that prior to her examination as Rajesh Aggarwal Vs State & Ors. Page 3/6 CW-2 on 22.03.2023, the date of 05.12.2019 was never in contemplation in minds of CW-1 and CW-2.
9. Another interesting aspect is that CW-3 Subhash Chand Chauhan has been examined by the complainant who happens to be the friend of complainant. He stated that on 12.12.2019, he met accused Sonali and he identified the golden articles worn by her as same were of the complainant. It is again highly improbable human conduct that a person who visits somebody's house and he is so sure about the identity of the gold articles that he pointed out at that very moment as to how come accused Sonali was wearing those gold articles. At the cost of repetition, this visit of CW-3 Sh. Subhash Chand Chauhan on 12.12.2019 is never disclosed by CW-1 and CW-
2. If CW-3 had asked the complainant as to how come Sonali Bansal was wearing those gold articles which were allegedly entrusted to her by the complainant, this fact was expected to be mentioned by the complainant at the very first available opportunity to him.
10. Therefore, there is an apparent effort on the part of the complainant to improve his allegation against the proposed accused persons which smacks of an afterthought on his part. The improvement in the testimonies of CWs assumes significance in the light of the fact that complainant is a legal practitioner and he apparently improvised the statements to make out a case for summoning of the accused persons under section 406/34 IPC.
11. It is a matter of record that proposed accused Sonali Bansal Rajesh Aggarwal Vs State & Ors. Page 4/6 Aggarwal left the house of the complainant on 11.03.2020 and an intimation was given by her mother Rachna Bansal wherein it was specifically mentioned that she had taken only her clothes, Jewellery and rest of the material was still in the possession of her in-laws. This statement / intimation has been signed by the complainant himself. If proposed accused Sonali Bansal Aggarwal had not handed over the so-called 'entrusted' gold articles, then the complainant and his family members should not have signed the receipt / intimation. The contents of this document are diametrically opposite to the claim of the complainant that proposed accused Sonali Bansal had taken all the jewellery articles entrusted to her alongwith the 'istridhan'.
12. Considering the totality of circumstances, I am of the considered view that Ld. MM has rightly observed that no element of criminal dishonesty can be attributed to proposed accused Sonali Bansal or other accused persons. This complaint has been filed by the complainant just to settle the scores. Complainant has failed to point out any case law in support of his allegations. Moreover, law is settled that jewellery articles which are being gifted to a bride at the time of her marriage (including pre marriage and post marriage functions) are part of her 'istridhan' and she cannot be summoned to face trial as an accused under section 406 IPC. Therefore, I do not find any merit in the present appeal and indulgence of this court is not required by any stretch of imagination. The impugned order has been passed by Ld. MM on the basis of correct interpretation of law and facts. Hence, in view of the above discussion, the present Rajesh Aggarwal Vs State & Ors. Page 5/6 appeal stands dismissed without any cost.
TCR be sent back to the concerned court.
Copy of the judgment be also sent alongwith the TCR. File be consigned to record room after necessary compliance.
Announced in the Open Court (Dhirendra Rana)
on 10.05.2024 Addl. Sessions Judge,
Spl. Judge (NDPS), North
District, Rohini Courts
Delhi.
Rajesh Aggarwal Vs State & Ors. Page 6/6