Delhi District Court
Virender Nath Kacker vs M/S B.Bagaria Associates Pvt.Ltd on 30 May, 2012
IN THE COURT OF SH.SURESH CHAND RAJAN
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE/SPECIAL JUDGE(NDPS)
DWARKA COURTS, NEW DELHI
Crl. Revision No.77/12
1. Virender Nath Kacker
2. Madhu Kacker
....Revisionist
Vs.
1. M/s B.Bagaria Associates Pvt.Ltd.
2. Kalash Bagaria
...... Respondent
Date of Institution : 30.03.2012
Reserved for order on : 26.05.2012
Order announced on: 30.05.2012
ORDER
The present revision u/s 397 Cr.PC has been preferred for setting aside the order dated 21.02.12 passed by Sh Sanjay Bansal, Ld.ACMM in Criminal Complaint Case no23/1 whereby the Ld. MM had returned the complaint u/s 156(3) Cr.PC to the complainant to present before appropriate court. Virdner Nath Kacker &Anr Vs. B.Bagaria Associates C.R.No.77/12 Page No. 1 of 6
2. Briefly stated the facts for giving rise to this revision is that the revisionist had filed application u/s 156(3) Cr.PC alleging offence u/s 406/415/420 IPC. The allegations levelled are that revisionist no.1 was working in Tea Estates in State of Assam. He came into contact with Mr. B Bagaria and Mr. Kailash Bagaria who were chartered accountants and working in the name and style of M/s B Bagaria Associates Pvt. Ltd. Having office at Dibrugarh, Assam. They became the Chartered Accountants of both the complainants and won their trust. In 1995 they advised complainants to invest their money with them. Both the complainants started depositing their money with them from 1995. It is stated that the accused persons/respondents were paying interest till 2005. In 2006 complainant/revisionist no.1 urgently required money for treatment of cancer and demanded back his money. The respondents however, did not return the same. The cheques issued towards discharge of liability got dishonoured. It is alleged that in July 2010 Mr. Bagaria came to Delhi and assured to pay back the money but nothing was done. A complaint was made to PS Dwarka dated 28.11.2011 which was got received on 3.12.11 but no action has been taken. Application was filed and after hearing the arguments on the said application , Ld. ACMM opined that this application is not maintainable in Delhi Court. Feeling aggrieved by the said order dated 21.02.2012, the revisionist has preferred this present revision for setting aside the Virdner Nath Kacker &Anr Vs. B.Bagaria Associates C.R.No.77/12 Page No. 2 of 6 said order.
3. This revision was received by this court on 30.03.2012. Trial court record was summoned which was received and thereafter I have heard the arguments from the Ld. Counsel for the revisionist.
4. During the course of arguments, it has been submitted by the Ld. Counsel for the revisionist that the order passed by the Ld. ACMM is against the law and Ld. ACMM has not appreciated the facts of the complaint case as the offence in the present case is consisting of several acts done in different local areas as the money was handed over by the petitioners to the respondents in Dibrugarh, Assam and the interest on the said amount was handed over by the respondents at Dibrugarh and they have also paid the interest even after the petitioners came and settled in Delhi. Ld. Counsel has drawn my attention on section 178/179 Cr.PC and stated that the present case came to the knowledge of the petitioners only when the cheques handed over to the petitioners were got dishonoured on presentation in Delhi and the respondent refused to pay the outstanding amount of the cheques at that time on his visit to Delhi. Ld. Counsel has further submitted that Ld. Trial court has erred in appreciating the facts of thte complaint case as the offence in the present case is in direct relation to the offence committed u/s 138 NI Virdner Nath Kacker &Anr Vs. B.Bagaria Associates C.R.No.77/12 Page No. 3 of 6 Act as the cheques were handed over to the petitioners by the respondents only to cheat the petitioners as the respondents had no intention to pay the legitimate outstanding amount and offence of cheating only came to light when after the dishonour of the cheques petitioner contacted the respondents for the payment of money and the respondents refused to pay the same. Ld. Counsel has drawn my attention on section 420/415/406 IPC and he has stated that the Magistrate having jurisdiction over the place where the property was to be returned or accounted for can try the offence and in the present complaint case the money was to be returned by the respondents to the petitioners in Delhi and therefore this court has jurisdiction to try the alleged offence and jurisdiction actually lies at the place where the property had to be delivered. He has submitted that the misappropriation came to the knowledge of the petitioner only in Delhi and therefore this court has jurisdiction to try this case. . It has been prayed that the order dated 21.2.2012 passed by Ld.ACMM may kindly be set aside.
5. In consideration of the arguments advanced by the Ld. Counsel for the revisionist, I have also perused the trial court file and the orders passed by the Ld. ACMM. Ld. AcMM has observed in his order that the the present case is for the offence u/s 406/415/420 IPC and not for offence u/s 138 NI Act and application disclose that Virdner Nath Kacker &Anr Vs. B.Bagaria Associates C.R.No.77/12 Page No. 4 of 6 offence of cheating or misappropriation was done within the jurisdiction of Dibrugarh Assam and not in Delhi.
6. Chapter XIII of the Code of Criminal Procedure deals with the jurisdiction of criminal courts in inquiries and trials. Section 177 of the Code of Criminal Procedure determines the jurisdiction of a court trying the matter. Section 177 provides that every offence shall ordinarily be inquired into and tried by a court within whose local jurisdiction it was committed. Section 178 of the Code, to the extent it is relevant, provides that where an offence is committed partly is one local area and partly in another, or where it consists of several acts done in different local areas, it may be inquired into or tried by a court having jurisdiction over any one of such local areas. Section 179 of the Code provides that when an act is an offence by reason of anything which has been done and of a consequence which has ensued, the offence may be inquired into or tried by a court within whose local jurisdiction such thing has been done or such consequence has ensured.
7. In case law Harjeet Vs. State, 1986 Cr.LJ 2070 (P&H) it is stated that : 'Criminal breach of trust or criminal misappropriation - So far as criminal breach of Virdner Nath Kacker &Anr Vs. B.Bagaria Associates C.R.No.77/12 Page No. 5 of 6 trust or criminal misappropriation is concerned, the courts at the places (1) where the offence of criminal breach of trust or criminal misappropriation is committed and (2) where such property was retained, would have territorial jurisdiction to try the case.
8. The venue of inquiry or trial of a case like the present one is primarily to be determined by the averments contained in the application u/s 156(3) Cr.PC. From the averments made in the application, it is crystal clear that the transaction of investing amount and paying interest took place in Dibrugarh, Assam. In consideration of the order dated 21.2.2012 passed by the Ld. ACMM, I am of the view that there is no illegality or impropriety in the said order direction the revisionist to file the complaint u/s 406/415/420 IPC before the appropriate court. Resultantly the present revision petition is hereby dismissed.
9. Trial court files be sent back to the court concerned with the copy of this order and revision file be consigned to record room. Announced in the Open Court on 30.05.2012.
(SURESH CHAND RAJAN) ADDL.SESSIONS JUDGE/ SPECIAL JUDGE(NDPS) NEW DELHI Virdner Nath Kacker &Anr Vs. B.Bagaria Associates C.R.No.77/12 Page No. 6 of 6