Delhi District Court
Piyush Jain vs State Of Delhi on 9 June, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SH. VIPIN KHARB:
ADDL SESSIONS JUDGE-07, SOUTH EAST DISTRICT:
SAKET COURT: NEW DELHI
CNR No.DLSE010062192024
Crl. Revision No.: 315/2024
Piyush Jain Vs. State
ORDER
09.06.2025
1. Present criminal revision petition u/s 397 read with Section 399 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C) has been filed against the impugned order dated 27.04.2024 vide which charge u/s.419/420/120B IPC was framed against the accused persons by the court of Ms. Deepti Devesh, Ld. CMM, South East, Saket Courts, Delhi in Cr. Case No.96727/2016, titled as "State Vs Raj Kumar Gupta."
2. By filing the present revision petition, accused no.2 seeks to set aside the impugned order dated 27.04.2024 qua him passed by the Ld. Trial Court.
3. Revisionist herein was the accused no.2 before the Ld. Trial Court and the respondent was the complainant before the Ld. Trial Court. For the sake of convenience, both parties will be addressed by the same nomenclature by which they were addressed before the Ld. Trial court.
4. Brief facts of the case are that FIR was registered on the complaint Crl Rev No.315/2024 Piyush Jain Vs. State Page page 1 of 10 dated 23.08.2005 given by complainant Sh. B.M. Goel in which it is alleged that complainant was approached by one J.K. Jain to surrender his membership / time sharing entitlement of Sterling Resorts and its Partner Firm RCI for an amount of Rs.3,16,800/- but on the condition that complainant would pay processing fee of Rs.1,31,000 to J.K. Jain's company 'De Europe'. The complainant paid Rs.65,000/- to J.K. Jain and against which a PDC from account in ICICI Bank was given to complainant by the accused. Another PDC of Rs.42,000/- was also given by J.K. Jain to the complainant. It is further alleged that Sh. J.K. Jain has also cheated two other complainants Sh. Jasbir Singh Jatya and Shri Kailash Jatia in similar manner and an FIR No.207/2006 was registered u/s 419/420/468/471/201/120B IPC at P.S. Kotla Mubarakpur against accused person. After the investigation charge-sheet was filed by the Investigating Officer but main accused Mr. J K Jain could not be traced during investigation.
5. Revision petition is filed on the ground that neither the name of accused no.2 Piyush Jain is mentioned in the complaints nor there is any allegation against him in any of the three complaints. Accused no.2 Piyush Jain had neither met the Complainants nor spoke to them during the period of alleged cheating. Accused no.2 Piyush Jain was working as a Solutions Manager at ICICI Bank (Vasant Vihar and Saket) and had only recommended opening of Bank account of accused J.K. Jain based on the photocopy of documents duly verified / attested by Mr. Utpal Borah, who was working as Relationship Executive, ICICI Bank at Saket Branch, New Delhi. The original documents were never produced before accused no.2 by Mr. Utpal Borah and only Crl Rev No.315/2024 Piyush Jain Vs. State Page page 2 of 10 photocopies of the documents were submitted by Mr. Utpal Borah before accused no.2. The documents i.e. the account opening form and photocopies of documents were verified / attested by Mr. Utpal Borah and the said documents had stamp of "Original Seen and Verified" under signature of Mr. Utpal Borah. In accordance with banking procedure, the accused no.2 Piyush Jain had only forwarded these documents to Saket Branch of ICICI Bank, which in turn, forwarded the documents to Central Processing Center (ICICI Bank) in Mumbai for account opening and consequently the account was opened by Central Processing Center of ICICI Bank in Mumbai. The accused no.2 Piyush Jain did not have any authorization to open the bank account in ICICI Bank's Core Banking Software and did not have any role in issuance of cheque book for the account no.017105001538.
6. As per the allegations in the charge-sheet, Mr. J.K. Jain cheated the complainant by arranging phone calls from RCI and by issuing receipt of cash on Letter Head of De Europe etc; Mr. J.K. Jain also met complainant in person and the account opening cheque submitted by accused J.K. Jain for opening account no.017105001538 was also from Savings Bank account of ICICI Bank. On the other hand, accused no.2 Piyush Jain never met any of the complainants or accused J.K. Jain.
7. It is further mentioned in revision petition that no ingredients of Section 420/120-B IPC has been fulfilled by the prosecution against the accused no.2 Piyush Jain as there is no allegation of any wrongful gain to the accused no.2 Piyush Jain and hence, prima facie no offence u/s 420 IPC is made out against Crl Rev No.315/2024 Piyush Jain Vs. State Page page 3 of 10 him. Further, no ingredients of section 120B IPC has been fulfilled by the prosecution against the accused no.2 (Piyush Jain) as there was no allegation of prior meeting of minds or a joint intent to commit the offence against the accused no.2 Piyush Jain in the entire charge sheet and hence, prima facie no offence u/s 419/420/120B IPC is made out against him. Despite that Ld. Trial Court has passed the impugned order in mechanical manner without going through the evidence and documents on record and the continuation of proceedings against the accused no.2 would be an abuse of process of court and would defeat the ends of justice.
8. During arguments, Counsel for accused no.2 submits that no investigation has been done from the accused no.2 and not even his disclosure statement was recorded and nothing was recovered from him. He was not even confronted with person named Anupam Sharma, with whom co-accused Utpal Borah was confronted. There is only one paragraph at Page no.12 of the charge-sheet wherein the name of accused no.2 Piyush Jain is mentioned and there also nothing incriminating is mentioned about him, despite that charges has been framed against him. He further submits that two witnesses namely Anup Sharma and Rajat has specifically stated that they never met accused no.2 Piyush Jain and cannot identify him and therefore, impugned order liable to be set aside and accused no.2 Piyush Jain should be discharged.
9. Ld. Addl. PP for the State opposed the petition on the ground that Ld. Trial Court have passed a correct order and submitted that present revision petition is liable to be dismissed.
Crl Rev No.315/2024 Piyush Jain Vs. State Page page 4 of 10
10. I have heard both the parties and gone through the record.
11. Accused no.2 Piyush Jain was working as Solution Manager at ICICI Bank for Branch at Vasant Vihar and Saket and Mr. Utpal Borah was working as Relationship Executive at Saket Branch. As per banking procedure, for opening an account in bank, the account opening form and original documents were to be verified by Relationship Executive and after that verified photocopies of original documents and account opening form were to be sent to the Solution Manager and Solution Manager, in turn, after verifying that all the required documents have been verified, forwards the documents to Central Processing Centre. So, original documents were only produced before Mr. Utpal Borah, who after verifying them, forwarded the verified photocopies to Piyush Jain.
12. At page 120 of TCR, the original account opening form is present. The original account opening form shows that it was signed and filled in the presence of Mr. Utpal Borah. It also bears the photograph of the person i.e. Rajat, who was authorized to operate the account for M/s 'De Europe'. So, Mr. Utpal Borah was the person who must have met the person, who came to fill the form and must have compared the photograph with the person, who was signing the account opening form, so, he knew whether there are the same person or not.
13. Accused no.2 have forwarded the internet banking form and roaming Crl Rev No.315/2024 Piyush Jain Vs. State Page page 5 of 10 current account form which are at page 121 and 122 of the TCR; these are forwarded by accused no.2 on the basis of documents i.e. CA letter, DL copy, Electricity Bill and cheque photocopy. At page 126, photocopy of DL of Rajat is annexed and it bears original stamps of the ICICI bank and it is verified with original by Mr. Utpal Borah. At page 127, the photocopy of cheque leaf is annexed and same is also verified with original by Mr. Utpal Borah. So, accused no.2 forwarded the account opening form on the basis of documents which were compared and verified with original by Mr. Utpal Borah.
14. So, in essence what accused no.2 did is that he after going through the checklist of the required documents and verifying that required documents are complete forwarded them to the Central Processing Centre. The accused no.2 never met the person who came to open the account and never had the opportunity to see whether the photograph affixed on the form is of the same person who came to the bank or to compare the photocopies of the documents with the original documents.
15. Accused no.2 was never privy with the original documents of person, who opened the account and never met him and also never met any of the complainants. In the charge sheet, name of accused no.2 is only mentioned in one paragraph and it is stated that he approved the recommendations of Mr. Utpal Borah regarding opening of the said account and except this role, no other role has been assigned to him. It is admitted in the charge sheet that he has never met any of the complainants, further, two prosecution witnesses namely Anup Sharma and Rajat has specifically stated that they have never Crl Rev No.315/2024 Piyush Jain Vs. State Page page 6 of 10 met accused no.2 Piyush Jain and cannot identify him.
16. IO had mentioned that accused no.2 was examined in detail but neither disclosure statement of the accused no.2 nor interrogation details of the accused no.2 is on the record. Absence of interrogatory questions shows that accused no.2 was never questioned by the IO and absence of disclosure statement shows the absence of any prosecution case against the accused no.2. This raises serious doubt that accused no.2 was ever examined or interrogated by the IO in the present case. Additionally, nothing was shown to be recovered from the accused no.2 in the present case. Further, nothing has been filed on the record to show that accused no.2 was in touch with main conspirator J.K. Jain and it is admitted by the prosecution that accused no.2 have never met the complainants.
17. Further perusal of the charge sheet shows that role of Harinder Singh Dhillion (discharged vide impugned order dated 27.04.2024) was that he was posted as Manager and he used to forward the account opening forms received from Solution Manager i.e. accused no.2 in this case, to the Processing Centre. Like Harvinder Singh Dhillion, accused no.2 also forwarded the documents received from Relationship Manager, without going through the original or without having any personal meeting with the customer. The role of accused no.2 is on similar footing to the role of Harvinder Singh Dhillion.
18. Only once name of accused no.2 appears in the charge sheet and it is alleged that he approved the recommendation of Relationship Manager Mr. Crl Rev No.315/2024 Piyush Jain Vs. State Page page 7 of 10 Utpal Borah but same is the part of his job profile. Even, if some negligence can be attributed on the part of accused no.2 but same cannot be a criminal negligence as no intention or knowledge have been imputed by the prosecution upon the accused no.2 for committing cheating with the complainants. He was only doing the work assigned to him by the bank and there can be some negligence on his part but for charge sheeting him there has to be some criminality in that negligence which is nowhere reflected in the charge sheet.
19. The law on point as to when an accused can be discharged or can be charged in situation where contradictory evidence is on record has been best laid down in case titled as "Union of India Vs. Prafulla Kumar Samal and Anr" (1979) 3 SCC 4. After examining all pros and cons following guidelines have been laid down in para no. 10 of the aforesaid judgment:-
"10. Thus, on a consideration of the authorities mentioned above, the following principles emerge:
1) That the Judge while considering the question of framing the charges under Section 227 of the Code has the undoubted power to sift and weigh the evidence for the limited purpose of finding out whether or not a prima facie case against the accused has been made out
2) Where the materials placed before the Court disclose grave suspicion against the accused which has not been properly explained the Court will be fully justified in framing a charge and proceeding with the trial.
3) The test to determine a prima facie case would naturally depend upon the facts of each case and it is difficult to lay down a rule of universal application. By and large however if two views are equally possible and the Judge is satisfied that the evidence produced before him. while giving rise to some suspicion but not grave suspicion against the accused, he will be fully within his right to discharge the accused.
4) That in exercising his jurisdiction under Section 227 of the Code the Judge which under the present Code is a senior and experienced Crl Rev No.315/2024 Piyush Jain Vs. State Page page 8 of 10 court cannot act merely as a post office or a mouthpiece of the prosecution, but has to consider the broad probabilities of the case, the total effect of the evidence and the documents produced before the Court, any basic infirmities appearing in the case and so on.
This however does not mean that the Judge should make a roving enquiry into the pros and cons of the matter and weigh the evidence as if he was conducting a trial."
20. Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case titled as "Satish Mehra Vs. Delhi Administration and Ors 1996 J. CC 507" has expressed similar view that when judge is fairly certain that there is no prospect of case ending in conviction the valuable time of the court should not be wasted for holding a trial only for the purpose of formally completing the procedure to pronounce the conclusion on future date.
21. In the present case, no material has been collected against the accused no.2 Piyush Jain except that he was the Solution Manager and approved the recommendation of Relationship Manager for opening of account, which was part of his job profile in ICICI Bank. He has no role to play in opening of bank account on the basis of fake documents except approving the recommendation of Mr. Utpal Borah, Relationship Manager, who verified the original documents. Nothing incriminating has been recovered from accused no.2 Piyush Jain. In view of the above discussion and considering the material collected during the investigation, there are no chances that prosecution can show any criminality in the act of the accused no.2. Suspicion, how strong may be but can never be a piece of evidence. All pieces of material, collected against accused no.2 Piyush Jain, even if considered together even then they failed to raise any Crl Rev No.315/2024 Piyush Jain Vs. State Page page 9 of 10 suspicion regarding his participation in conspiracy to cheat the complainant, leave aside grave suspicion. Therefore, the accused no.2 Piyush Jain is entitled to be discharged from the present case.
22. Accordingly, in view of the above conclusion, the charges framed qua accused no.2 Piyush Jain vide order dated 14.08.2024 is set aside and accused no.2 Piyush Jain is discharged from the case. As regarding the other accused persons, charge framed against them vide order dated 14.08.2024 stands as is it and Ld. Trial is directed to proceed with the trial against them.
23. Copy of this order be sent to Ld. Trial Court alongwith TCR.
24. Revision file be consigned to Record Room after due compliance.
Vipin Digitally signed
by Vipin Kharb
Date: 2025.06.09
Kharb 16:44:24 +0530
Dictated and Announced in (Vipin Kharb)
the open Court on 09.06.2025 ASJ-07, South-East, Saket Courts
New Delhi
Crl Rev No.315/2024 Piyush Jain Vs. State Page page 10 of 10