Delhi District Court
State vs . S.K. Mathur And Ors. on 7 January, 2023
IN THE COURT OF CHIEF METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE (NORTH DISTRICT), ROHINI
COURTS, DELHI
Presided by : Ms. Shama Gupta
State Vs. S.K. Mathur and Ors.
FIR No. 466/04
PS Connaught Place (investigated by Crime Branch)
U/s 406/420/120B IPC
Date of institution : 02.03.2005
Date of reserving : 17.12.2022
Date of pronouncement : 07.01.2023
JUDGMENT
a) Serial number of the case 5290134/16
b) Date of commission of October 2002 onwards
offence
c) Name of the complainant Satish Chander Gupta, S/o Late Sh.
Kishan Lal, R/o 66, SFS DDA Flats,
Pocket-F, Sheikh Sarai, Phase 1, New
Delhi.
d) Name, parentage and 1) Shyam Kishore Mathure @ S.K.
address of the accused Mathur, S/o Prahlad Singh, R/o 10
Baber Lane, Bengali Market, New
Delhi.
2) Pankaj Mathur, s/o Sh. S.K.
Mathur (Absconder)
3) Smt. Meena Mathur, W/o Sh. S.K
Mathur, R/o C/o Vijay Kishore
Mathur, Agra University Campus,
Agra.
4) Smt. Shaifali Mathur w/o Sh.
Pankaj Mathur. R/o C/o Vijay
Kishore Mathur, Agra University
State Vs. S.K. Mathur and Ors.
FIR No. 466/04 PS: Connaught Place Page No. 1 of 10
Compus, Agra.
e) Offence complained of 406/420/120B IPC
f) Plea of the accused Accused pleaded not guilty.
g) Final order Acquitted
h) Date of final order 07.01.2023
BRIEF FACTS AND REASONS FOR DECISION OF THE CASE
1. Vide this judgment, the accused persons namely Shyam Kishore Mathur (S.K. Mathur), Meena Mathur and Shaifali Mathur stands acquitted of the offences punishable under Section 120B IPC, Section 420 r/w 120B IPC or Section 406 r/w 120B IPC, for the reasons mentioned below.
CASE OF THE PROSECUTION
2. The case of the prosecution as unfolded by the police report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short 'Cr.P.C.'), is that, from October 2002 onwards, the accused Shyam Kishore Mathur (S.K. Mathur), being the conveyor, Meena Mathur and Shaifali Mathur, being the Director of Aapka Bazar Jaipur Pvt. Ltd., having registered office at 8G Hansalaya, 15 Barakhamba Road, Connaught Place, entered into criminal conspiracy with the co-accused Pankaj Mathur, Managing Director (absconder), so as to cheat the complainant S.C. Gupta or in alternative, to misappropriate the amount entrusted by Sh. S.C. Gupta to their firm Aapka Bazar Pvt. Ltd.
State Vs. S.K. Mathur and Ors.
FIR No. 466/04 PS: Connaught Place Page No. 2 of 10 Jaipur. It is further alleged that the above named accused persons had actually cheated the complainant in the sum of Rs.2,50,000/- approximately, by inducing the complainant to deliver the said amount to them, on the pretext of providing Franchisee of Aapka Bazar Jaipur Pvt. Ltd., which they had never provided. Hence, it is alleged by the prosecution that the accused persons had committed offences punishable under section 420/406/120B IPC.
3. The investigation was done by the IO and after conclusion of investigation, final report under Section 173 of the Cr.P.C., was filed, in respect of the offences punishable under Section 406/420/120B IPC. Since the accused Meena Mathur and Shaifali Mathur had been arrested subsequently therefore, qua them supplementary chargesheet was filed on 10.08.2007.
COURT PROCEEDINGS
4. The Learned Predecessor of this court took cognizance upon the said police report on 02.03.2005 and 10.08.2007. On 05.04.2005, the copies of police report and documents were supplied to the accused S.K. Mathur and on 10.08.2007, the same were supplied to the accused Meena Mathur and Shaifali Mathur.
CHARGE
5. Vide order dated 24.11.2012, the Learned Predecessor of this court framed charges against the accused Shyam Kishore Mathur (S.K. Mathur), Meena Mathur and Shaifali Mathur, for State Vs. S.K. Mathur and Ors.
FIR No. 466/04 PS: Connaught Place Page No. 3 of 10 the offences punishable under Section 120B IPC, Section 420 r/w 120B IPC or in alternative Section 406 r/w 120B IPC, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
EVIDENCE OF THE PROSECUTION
6. Thereafter, the matter was listed for prosecution evidence.
Prosecution Witnesses
7. In order to prove and substantiate its case, the prosecution has examined seven witnesses, namely:
Designation and Name Role in the present case Sr. No. of the Witness
1. PW1 Satish Chander Victim/complainant.
Gupta
2. PW 2 ASI Dalbir Singh Duty officer
3. PW 3 Inspector Keshav Police official who had Mathur accompanied IO during investigation on 14.12.2004.
4. PW4 Inspector Investigating officer.
Manmohan Singh
5. PW5 Inspector Satbir Witness who prepared rukka Singh and registered the FIR.
Documents on record:
8. The prosecution witnesses relied on the following documents:-
State Vs. S.K. Mathur and Ors. FIR No. 466/04 PS: Connaught Place Page No. 4 of 10 Sr. No. Exhibits/Marks Nature of documents
1. Ex. PW1/A Complaint of the complainant
2. Ex.PW1/B Seizure memo
3. Ex.PW2/A (OSR) Copy of FIR.
4. Ex. PW3/A and Ex. Disclosure statement and arrest memo PW3/B of accused Shyam Kishore Mathur
5. Ex. PW4/A and Ex. Arrest memo of accused Shaifali PW4/B Mathur and Meena Mathur.
6. Ex. PW5/A Rukka
7. Mark P2 Franchisee Agreement
9. All the prosecution witnesses were duly cross examined by Ld. Defence Counsel. Thereafter, prosecution evidence was closed vide order dated 31.08.2019. The court will discuss the testimonies of the said witnesses later i.e. at the time of appreciation of evidence.
THE STATEMENT OF THE ACCUSED UNDER SECTION 313 Cr.PC. / DEFENCE OF THE ACCUSED
10. The accused persons namely S.K. Mathur, Shaifali Mathur and Meena Mathur, in their statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., on 28.09.2019, denied the entire evidence put to them. They stated that they are innocent and has been falsely implicated by the complainant, with the collusion of the police, who converted a civil dispute, based upon written agreement of franchisee, into a criminal case, with malafide intention to grab the valuable property of the company and its funds and also to avoid paying penal charges.
State Vs. S.K. Mathur and Ors.
FIR No. 466/04 PS: Connaught Place Page No. 5 of 10
11. Accused persons further opted not to lead any defence evidence.
FINAL ARGUMENTS
12. The court heard the final arguments as advanced by Dr. Sharawan Kumar Bishnoi, Ld. APP for the State, as well as that of Ld. Defence counsel. The court has also diligently gone through the charge-sheet, documents, evidence recorded and the entire material on record.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
13. In the present matter, as per the case put forth by the prosecution, all the accused persons, entered into criminal conspiracy and induced the complainant, by virtue of an advertisement in the newspaper, so as to secure an investment to the tune of Rs.4.5 lacs, after execution of franchisee agreement Mark P2. It is alleged that all the accused persons were running an establishment in the name of M/s. Aapka Bazar Jaipur Pvt. Ltd. and thus, they have offered a mini store (franchisee store) to the complainant, in lieu of investment but, after obtaining an amount of Rs. 2,50,000/- from the complainant, the accused persons never opened the franchisee store and also failed to return the invested amount. The execution of Mark P2 is not disputed by either parties. In-fact, PW-1/complainant in his cross-examination admitted that he had signed the agreement Mark P2, after understanding all the terms and conditions of the said agreement. Thus, his testimony rules out the possibility of the said agreement being got signed from State Vs. S.K. Mathur and Ors.
FIR No. 466/04 PS: Connaught Place Page No. 6 of 10 him under misrepresentation or the terms and conditions not being clear to him. It is also not disputed that the accused persons namely Meena Mathur and Shaifali Mathur were the Directors in the said company and therefore, responsible for the day to day affairs of the said company. As far as role of accused S. K. Mathur is concerned, it is stated by the complainant that he was managing the affairs of the business, without any formal designation. PW-1 deposed that he himself went to the office of the company at Barakhamba Road and handed over a total sum of Rs. 2,50,000/- to the accused persons, into two equal installments by cheque.
14. The complainant/PW1 further deposed that after securing the investment of Rs.2,50,000/-, the accused persons failed to open the said franchisee/mini store and further, they failed to return the alleged invested amount, as requested by him. He further alleged that when he had sought return of money, the accused persons issued him 10 cheques of Rs. 25,000/- each, of Bank of Rajasthan but, upon presentation, all the said cheques got bounced.
15. During the course of his cross-examination by Ld. APP for the State, complainant/PW-1 admitted that at the time of receiving the amount of Rs. 2,50,000/-, the company had issued him the receipts, in respect of the payment being made by him. During the course of his cross-examination by Ld. Counsel for the accused persons, he also admitted that as per the agreement Mark P2, the company was supposed to provide him goods for sale as well as the infrastructure but, the space for the shop was meant to be arranged by the complainant. He also admitted that he had not handed over any bank returning memo to the IO, to establish that the cheques State Vs. S.K. Mathur and Ors.
FIR No. 466/04 PS: Connaught Place Page No. 7 of 10 issued by the company were bounced. He also admitted that he had not served any legal notice to the accused persons, after breach of the terms and conditions of the agreement.
16. The prosecution had further examined the IO of the case as PW-4 and he during the course of his cross-examination deposed that whatever documents were given by the complainant to him, were all photocopies and he had not verified the same from the originals. He also admitted that when he visited the premises of the complainant, the complainant disclosed to him that the premises was also closed and he had not seized any material from the said premises. He also admitted that as per the agreement, the accused company had to supply some goods to the complainant and the complainant is required to prepare a daily stock record and to communicate the same to the accused company. He also admitted that as per the agreement, the accused persons were required to provide the entire furniture, interiors, including equipments to the franchisee and as per the agreement, if the agreement was terminated by the franchisee, then all the goods are required to be returned to the accused persons.
17. The said testimony of PW-4 shows that before registration of FIR and even during the course of investigation, the IO had not made any efforts to ascertain as to whether the said goods, stocks and furniture were ever supplied by the accused persons to the complainant at any point of time. The said fact is necessary to be proved by the prosecution, so as to show that the accused never had the intention of honoring the terms of agreement Mark P2, State Vs. S.K. Mathur and Ors.
FIR No. 466/04 PS: Connaught Place Page No. 8 of 10 after obtaining an investment of Rs. 2.5 lacs from the complainant. Further, as per the testimony of PW4, the complainant failed to get his premises inspected from the IO, to prove that he had arranged for the place, for opening of store, after entering into agreement Mark P2 and it was the accused persons, who failed to honor the terms and conditions of the agreement Mark P2.
18. Further, in his testimony, PW-1 deposed that when he has sought return of his invested money, from the accused persons then, the accused company had issued 10 post dated cheques of Rs. 25,000/- each to him, but, as per PW1, the same were dishonored on presentation. But, to prove the said fact also, the complainant had not placed on record any dishonour memo. PW-4 also deposed that he had not collected the banking transaction details/record from the complainant and had also not seized the bank account of the accused persons or of their company. The aforesaid testimony of PW-1 and PW-4 clearly proves that there was no case of criminal breach of trust or cheating on the part of the accused persons, rather, the transaction between the accused persons and the complainant, was purely business transaction, arising out of a written agreement Mark P2, which was never terminated by the complainant.
CONCLUSION
19. In the light of the above discussion, in the considered opin- ion of this Court, the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused Shyam Kishore Mathur @ S.K. Mathur, State Vs. S.K. Mathur and Ors.
FIR No. 466/04 PS: Connaught Place Page No. 9 of 10 Pankaj Mathur, Meena Mathur and Shaifali beyond reasonable doubt. Accused Shyam Kishore Mathur @ S.K. Mathur, Meena Mathur and Shaifali Mathur are accordingly, acquitted of the of- fence u/s 120B IPC, Section 420 r/w 120B IPC or Section 406 r/w 120B IPC.
File be consigned to record room, after due compliance.
Announced in open Court on 07.01.2023 (Shama Gupta) Chief Metropolitan Magistrate North District, Rohini Courts, Delhi State Vs. S.K. Mathur and Ors.
FIR No. 466/04 PS: Connaught Place Page No. 10 of 10