Delhi District Court
Sanjay Singh vs . on 30 September, 2015
IN THE COURT OF MS. NEHA: METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE03 : (SOUTH EAST) DELHI
CC No:6/1/12
Unique ID No. 02406R0515302009
Sanjay Singh
S/o Sh. Havaldar
R/o J92, Saurabh Vihar,
Badarpur, New Delhi110044 ...... Complainant
Vs.
1. Chandrahas Shukla
S/o Shri R. S. Shukla
R/o J66/4, Saurabh Vihar,
Badarpur, New Delhi
2. Sachin
S/o Sh. Sadhu Singh
R/o D3, Railway Colony,
Tughlakabad, New Delhi .....Respondents
Date of Institution of Case : 26.11.2014 Date on which arguments heard : 01.09.2015 Date of order : 30.09.2015 CC no. 6/1/12 Sanjay Singh Vs. Chandrahas Shukla PS. Jaitpur 1 of 15 Counsels for the Parties:
Sh. S. K. Srivastava, Ld. Counsel for the complainant. Sh. Abid Ibrahim, Ld. counsel for both accused.
ORDER ON CHARGE The case of complainant in brief is that complainant had purchased a Vehicle/Car bearing no. HR38NT 2463 from Prakash Chand Joshi, through his brother Harish Chand Joshi, R/o Sec. 7, Faridabad for an amount of Rs. 1,10,000/. The said deal was finalized through Harish Chand Joshi and the complainant had paid Rs. 40,000/ in cash and Rs. 70,000/ by way of cheque bearing no. 535226, to Sh. Prakash Chand Joshi through his brother Harish Chand Joshi.
2. It is submitted in the complaint that since the complainant was not able to pay the whole amount, he approached accused no. 2 namely Sachin for finance of loan. The accused No. 2 demanded Rs. 7,500/ for his commission from the complainant and further demanded the vehicle and its documents as the same would be produced before the bank. The complainant, on good faith, gave Rs. 7500/, vehicle and all documents to accused no. 2 alongwith Sale Letter.
3. It is alleged that three months had passed since the handing over CC no. 6/1/12 Sanjay Singh Vs. Chandrahas Shukla PS. Jaitpur 2 of 15 of documents and vehicle, accused no. 2 neither financed the loan amount nor returned the vehicle or documents of vehicle.
4. It is further submitted that the complainant met with accused no. 1 namely Mr. Chandrahas Shukla and requested him to help in getting his vehicle and documents back. The accused no. 1 assured the complainant that if the complainant will pay him Rs. 50,000/, he will get the vehicle and all papers returned to the complainant. After discussion, the accused agreed for Rs. 30,000/ and the accused no. 1 also assured the complainant that he will get returned the vehicle of the complainant within 4 days. The accused no. 1 asked the complainant to pay Rs. 15,000/ as advance and Rs. 15,000/ after receiving vehicle. The complainant had paid only Rs. 9000/ to the accused no. 1 in advance on 14.10.2009 and went to the accused no. 1 alongwith rest amount of Rs. 6000/ after 2 days. However the accused no. 1 started making false assurance on one pretext to another.
5. It is further submitted that the complainant called on the mobile no. 9210283673 of accused no. 1, however, the accused no. 1 started abusing the complainant in filthy language and extended threats that if the complainant again asked for his vehicle, then he will kill him and CC no. 6/1/12 Sanjay Singh Vs. Chandrahas Shukla PS. Jaitpur 3 of 15 his family member. The complainant met with accused no. 1 in the office of one Ganesh Prasad Dubey and asked him for the vehicle or to return his amount, accused no. 1 threatened, "Main Shiv Sena ka leader hoon aur meri police main jaan pehchan hai, tu mera kuch nahi bigad sakta, main jab chahu tumko khatam karwa sakta hoon aur Sachin bhi mera dost hai tu uska bhi kuch nahi kar sakta ab na to tumhe gadi milegi na paisa"
6. It is further submitted in the complaint that in this regard, the complainant lodged a complaint with the police on 20.10.2009. However, no action has been taken against the accused. The accused persons had intention to cheat from the inception of the deal and had committed cheating, fraud and breach of trust with the complainant and have also threatened to kill him and his family members. Hence, present complaint is filed.
7. During pre summoning evidence, the complainant has examined himself as CW1. He has examined Ramesh as CW2. He has also examined his brother Kaushal Singh as CW3. Complainant has further examined registered owner Shri Prakash Chand Joshi as CW4. Pre summoning evidence was closed vide order dated 13.07.2012.
CC no. 6/1/12 Sanjay Singh Vs. Chandrahas Shukla PS. Jaitpur 4 of 15
8. Vide order dt. 01.08.2012 accused Chandrahas Shukla and Sachin were summoned for offence u/s 420/506 IPC. They appeared alongwith their counsels and they were released on bail vide order dt. 29.11.2012.
9. During pre charge evidence, the complainant has examined four witnesses. He has examined himself as PW1, record clerk RTO, Faridabad as PW2, independent witness Ramesh as PW3 and his brother Kaushal as PW4. Pre charge evidence was closed vide order 09.03.2015. Thereafter, matter was fixed for arguments on charge.
10. Ld. counsel for accused has argued that the complainant has failed to prove its case prima facie and the document Ex.PW1/D1 shows that complainant had transfered the vehicle in the name of Sachin and executed sale letter in his name. It is submitted that the material placed by the complainant is not sufficient to frame charge against accused and the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
11. On the other hand, Ld. counsel for complainant has argued that the complainant has examined registered owner Prakash Chand Joshi during pre summoning evidence and has examined the record clerk in pre charge evidence who has proved that the vehicle is not registered in CC no. 6/1/12 Sanjay Singh Vs. Chandrahas Shukla PS. Jaitpur 5 of 15 the name of complainant and other witnesses, examined by the complainant, have proved that the complainant had handed over the RC and the vehicle to Sachin to get the RC transfered in his name and thereafter a sum of Rs. 9,000/ to Chandrahas Shukla to get returned documents and vehicle from Sachin. It is submitted that the material is sufficient to frame charge against both accused.
12. I have gone through the material on record and considered the submissions.
13. The complainant has alleged offence u/s 420/506 IPC. Section 420 IPC provides punishment for offence of cheating and Section 506 IPC provides punishment for offence of criminal intimidation.
14. Now, I will examine whether prima facie offence of cheating is made out against the accused persons so as to frame charge against them and proceed with trial.
15. Complainant has examined himself as PW1 during pre charge evidence and has reiterated the allegation in the complaint.
16. Complainant has examined Record Clerk, RTO Faridabad as PW2 who produced the record of vehicle no. HR38 NT 2463. He has stated that initially the vehicle was registered was in the name of CC no. 6/1/12 Sanjay Singh Vs. Chandrahas Shukla PS. Jaitpur 6 of 15 Prakash Chand Joshi and later on, it was transferred in the name of one Baghirath Sahu. The record of transfer is Ex.PW2/A. He also stated that only after Form No. 29 & 30 is submitted in original, the vehicle is transferred in the name of some other persons.
17. The complainant has also examined Shri Ramesh as PW3 who is an independent witness. PW3 Ramesh has stated that complainant had purchased one Indica Car from Prakash Chand Joshi and in his presence, complainant Sanjay Singh had given the original documents of the vehicle and the vehicle to Sachin to get RC transferred in his name. Complainant also gave Rs. 7,500/ to Sachin to transfer. Later on Sachin refused to return the documents and the vehicle. Thereafter, he alongwith complainant Sanjay Singh went to Chandrahas Shukla and Chandrahas Shukla stated that if complainant would pay Rs. 30,000/, he would get the documents and vehicle back and complainant need not file any case in this regard. Sanjay did not had money and he gave Rs. 9,000/ to Chandrahas on that day.
18. PW3 Ramesh has been cross examined by the Ld. Defence Counsel and during cross examination, the witness has stated that he knows Chandrahas Shukla for about 7 years and after 23 months of the deal of the car, Sanjay Singh contacted Chandrahas Shukla to get CC no. 6/1/12 Sanjay Singh Vs. Chandrahas Shukla PS. Jaitpur 7 of 15 returned his vehicle from Sachin.
19. PW4 Kaushal Singh, who is brother of complainant, has also supported the allegations of complainant.
20. PW1/complainant has deposed that he has purchased car no. HR 38 NT 2463 from Prakash Chand Joshi for the sum of Rs. 1,10,000/. He handed over paper and car to Sachin to get the same financed and for transfer of papers in his name. Later on, Sachin threatened him and did not return his vehicle, documents or money. Thereafter, he had given Rs. 9,000/ to Chandrahas Shukla to get the documents and vehicle from Sachin.
21. The complainant during cross examination has denied that the document Ex.PW1/D1 which are Form 29 and 30 in respect of vehicle are bearing his signature. Perusal of the documents Ex.PW1/D1 would show that the documents were allegedly executed in the name of Sachin. The document Ex.CW1/D1 allegedly shows that vide sale letter, complainant Sanjay Singh had sold the vehicle HR38NT 2463 to accused No. 2 Sachin Singh s/o Sh. Sadhu Singh. However, the record of the RTO shows that the vehicle is presently transferred in the name of Bhagirath Sahu. No question has been put to the complainant during his cross examination that the complainant had sold the vehicle to CC no. 6/1/12 Sanjay Singh Vs. Chandrahas Shukla PS. Jaitpur 8 of 15 Sachin Singh and thereafter Sachin Singh has transferred the vehicle to Bhagirath Sahu.
22. Complainant during cross examination has stated that he had not handed over the documents and vehicle to Chandrahas Shukla. He has also admitted that during his dealing with Sachin, Chandrahas Shukla had no role to play. The complainant has alleged that he had handed over the vehicle and the documents with money to Sachin for transfer of vehicle in his name. However, neither Sachin returned the vehicle and documents nor handed over the money to him. Thereafter, he had approached Chandrahas Shukla for help who demanded money Rs. 30,000/ to get returned his documents and vehicle from Sachin. However later on, Chandrahas Shukla neither got returned his vehicle or documents and rather threatened him.
23. During cross examination on behalf of accused Chandrahas, one suggestion has been given to complainant 'It is correct that I had given only a sum of Rs. 9,000/ to Chandrahas.' The suggestion given by Ld. Defence Counsel itself shows that accused Chandrahas had taken a sum of Rs. 9,000/ from the complainant and there is no suggestion to the effect that he had returned the money. Accused Chandrahas had allegedly taken Rs. 9,000/ from complainant and did CC no. 6/1/12 Sanjay Singh Vs. Chandrahas Shukla PS. Jaitpur 9 of 15 not return him.
24. During cross examination by Ld. Defence Counsel for accused Sachin, the complainant has stated that he did not file any complaint during initial months when he handed over documents and vehicle to Sachin as Sachin kept on assuring that he would get the vehicle financed and would also get the vehicle transferred in his name. There is nothing at this stage to doubt the statement of complainant and other witnesses that complainant had handed over vehicle, documents and money to Sachin to get the RC transferred and thereafter money to Chandrahas to get the documents and vehicle returned from Sachin. However, both of them neither returned money or vehicle or documents. Mere fact that the witnesses do not recollect the date of purchase of vehicle or the date of handing over of documents and vehicle to Sachin does not make their testimony unreliable.
25. At the stage of framing the charge, the Court has to prima facie consider whether there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. At the stage of framing of charge, the enquiry must necessarily be limited to decide if the facts emerging from the materials on record constitute the offence with which the accused CC no. 6/1/12 Sanjay Singh Vs. Chandrahas Shukla PS. Jaitpur 10 of 15 could be charged. The Court is required to evaluate the material and documents on record with a view to find out if the facts emerging therefrom taken at their face value disclose the existence of all the ingredients constituting the alleged offence. Before framing the charge, the Court must apply its judicial mind to the material placed on record and must be satisfied that the commitment of offence by the accused was possible.
26. In the present case, there is nothing to show that the accused had dishonest intention since beginning to cheat the complainant. The complainant, neither in his complaint nor in the statement before the Court, has alleged that the accused persons had induced him to hand over documents and vehicle or money to get the RC transferred in his name. There is nothing on record to suggest that the accused persons had induced the complainant to hand over vehicle, documents or money. Accordingly, this court is of the opinion that offence u/s 420 IPC is not made out against any of the accused persons.
27. The complainant has categorically stated during cross examination that he had handed over documents and vehicle and money to Sachin to get the RC transfered in his name. Similarly, his CC no. 6/1/12 Sanjay Singh Vs. Chandrahas Shukla PS. Jaitpur 11 of 15 brother Kaushal had stated that complainant had handed over documents and vehicle to Sachin to get the vehicle transfered in his name. Independent witness/PW3 Ramesh had also stated that complainant had purchased vehicle from Prakash Chand and handed over original documents and vehicle to Sachin to get the vehicle transfered and a sum of Rs. 7,500/ for transfer.
28. The fact that presently the vehicle is registered in the name of Bhagirath Shahu and not in the name of Sanjay Singh and the allegation of complainant Sanjay that Sachin had taken the vehicle, documents and money on the promise to get the RC transfered in the name of complainant and the allegation qua accused Chandrahas that accused Chandrahas had taken Rs. 9,000/ from complainant to get the documents and vehicle returned from Sachin are prima facie sufficient to frame charge u/s 406 IPC against both accused.
29. In order to attract the definition of 'Criminal Breach of Trust', there must be entrustment of the property. The second ingredients is that the person entrusted should have misappropriated the property or converted the same to his own use or dishonestly using or disposing of that property thereby willfully causing suffering to the other person in CC no. 6/1/12 Sanjay Singh Vs. Chandrahas Shukla PS. Jaitpur 12 of 15 violation to the terms of agreement.
30. The allegations of complainant that accused Sachin after taking his vehicle, documents and money did not return it and Chandrahas after taking money did not return money is sufficient to frame charge for offence of criminal breach of trust against both accused
31. Now, coming to offence under section 506 IPC. Ingredients of offence of ''criminal intimidation'' as defined in Section 503 IPC and punishable under Section 506 IPC are as under: (1) Threatening a person with any injury;
(i) to his person, reputation or property; or
(ii) to the person or reputation of any one in whom that person is interested.
(2) Threatening a person with injury.
(a) to cause alarm to that person, or
(b) to cause the person to do any act which he is not legally bound to do as the means of avoiding the execution of such threat, or
(c) to cause that person to omit to do any act which that person is legally entitled to do so as the means of avoiding the execution of such threat.
32. The complainant in his complaint has stated that he asked Sachin to return the documents and the vehicle but Sachin did not CC no. 6/1/12 Sanjay Singh Vs. Chandrahas Shukla PS. Jaitpur 13 of 15 return it. Thereafter, he met Chandrahas Shukla who took a sum of Rs. 9,000/ to get the documents and vehicle from Sachin, however, Chandrahas had later on threatened the complainant that he will get him and his family killed.
33. The complainant during his examination as PW1 has stated that when he demanded vehicle, documents and cash of Rs. 7,500/, Sachin abused him and kept on threatening him. He has further stated qua accused Chandrahas Shukla that when he demanded money from Chandrahas Shukla, Chandrahas started quarreling with him and threatened him. Thereafter, he had to file complaint with the police against the illegal acts. These allegations of complainant itself shows that the complainant was not alarmed after alleged threat was extended by the accused.
34. It is settled position of law that the gist of the offence under Section 506 IPC is that the threat is intended to have upon the mind of the person threatened. Mere vague allegation will not satisfy the essential ingredients of Section 506 IPC. The averments made in the complaint and statement of the complainant before this Court also do not satisfy the essential ingredients of the offence punishable under CC no. 6/1/12 Sanjay Singh Vs. Chandrahas Shukla PS. Jaitpur 14 of 15 Sections 506 IPC.
35. The law is settled that mere empty threats do not constitute the offence punishable under Section 506. The allegations of the complainant are only that the accused gave threats. There is no mention that the said threats caused alarm to the complainant. Hence, offence punishable u/s 506 IPC is not made out against any of the accused. The witnesses examined by the complainant have also not deposed that any such threats caused alarm to the complainant.
36. In the absence of any evidence or deposition with regard to the alarm to the complainant in consequent to the alleged threats, the offence under Section 506 IPC is not constituted. Therefore, this Court holds that the complainant has failed to prove prima facie case for offence under section 506 of IPC against the accused persons.
37. In view of discussion hereinabove, this court is of the opinion that prima facie offence under section 406 IPC is made against both accused.
Pronounced in the open Court (NEHA)
today on 30th September, 2015 MM03 (South East)
Saket, New Delhi
CC no. 6/1/12 Sanjay Singh Vs. Chandrahas Shukla
PS. Jaitpur 15 of 15