Delhi District Court
Sh. Nariender Singh vs Sh. Parvesh Kumar on 24 July, 2020
IN THE COURT OF MR. DHARMESH SHARMA
DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE : WEST DISTRICT
TIS HAZARI COURTS : DELHI
Criminal Revision No. 110/2019
CNR No. DLWT01-002676-2020
In re:
Sh. Nariender Singh
General Secretary, Society for the
Development of Human Resources,
Having its Workshop cum working office
C/o Shri Pushpraj, First Floor, Plot No.06,
Kavita Colony, Nangloi,
Delhi ...... Petitioner/revisionist
Versus
1. Sh. Parvesh Kumar
S/o Sh. Om Prakash
R/o H.No.11, Ranholla,
Delhi-110041
2. Sh. Pawan Kumar
S/o Sh. Om Prakash
R/o H.No.11, Ranholla,
Delhi-110041
3. Sh. Balwan Singh Gulia
R/o 11/441, Railway Road,
Near Dahiya Tent House, Sant Colony,
Bahadurgarh
4. Sonia
R/o Village Kundal-241, Sonipat,
Haryana
5. Santosh Lakra
R/o H.No.11, Ranholla,
Delhi-110041
Crl. Rev. 110/20 Nariender Singh v. Parvesh Kumar Page 1 of 10
6. Anil Kumar Kaushik
R/o Flat No. 24, Nagin Lake Appt.
Peragarhi, New Delhi
7. S. Reji Kumar
R/o 8C, C3, A Block,
MIG Flat, Janakpuri,
8. Sh. Ashok Sharma
R/o H. No. M-16, Second Floor,
Guru Harkishan Nagar,
Paschim Vihar, New Delhi
9. Smt. Jaya Sharma
W/o Sh. Ashok Sharma
R/o H.No. M-16, Second Floor,
Guru Harkishan Nagar,
Paschim Vihar, New Delhi ...... Respondents
Date of Institution : 06.07.2020
Date of hearing arguments : 22.07.2020
Date of judgment : 24.07.2020
Appearances:
Sh. Manoj Chauhan, Advocate for petitioner/revisionist.
ORDER
1. The petitioner/revisionist claims himself to be General Secretary of 'the Society for the Development of Human Resources', (for short referred as 'the Society') has filed the present criminal revision under Section 397 read with Section 399 Cr.P.C. assailing the order dated 08.06.2020, passed by the Court of Sh. Abhinav Pandey, Ld.MM -08 (West), THC, Delhi, whereby the criminal complaint filed by the petitioner/revisionist has been dismissed.
Crl. Rev. 110/20 Nariender Singh v. Parvesh Kumar Page 2 of 10BACK GROUND FACTS
2. The case of the petitioner/revisionist is that 'the' was incorporated in the year 2008 under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 inter alia for the purposes of working in the field of academics/education and presently running a College in the name of Delhi Technical Campus at Bahadurgarh, Haryana. It is stated that the petitioner/revisionist Narinder Singh is the founder Member and the first President of the Society in the year 2008, who resigned in the year 2009 and became Treasurer while Sh. Satish Chhikara remained President from the year 2009 till March-2012 and the latter resigned from the Society on 08.03.2012 and another Executive Member Mr. Satya Prakash Chhikara resigned from the Society on 12.05.2012. It is stated that Sh. Shajat Kataria and Sh. Ravinder Kataria joined as Executive Members of the Governing Body in the year 2012 after resignation of the aforesaid two members and the rest of the members were founder members of the Society.
3. It is further claimed by the petitioner/revisionist that there was no President in the Society after the resignation of the Sh. Satish Chhikara till 2017, and the Society was being run by its General Secretary, namely Sh. Ashok Sharma till his resignation on 20.05.2014 and after resignation of Sh. Ashok Sharma the Society was being run through its Treasurer, the petitioner/revisionist till 2017. It is stated that both Sh. Ashok Sharma and Ms. Jaya Sharma have since resigned from the Society on 20.05.2014; and that in the Governing Body Meeting on 30.09.2017, it was unanimously resolved to hold elections of the Society, which were held in the year 2017 for the term 2018-21 Crl. Rev. 110/20 Nariender Singh v. Parvesh Kumar Page 3 of 10 and General Body of the Society elected Sh. Ravinder Kataria as its President; Sh. Narinder Singh as General Secretary and Sh. Shajat Kataria was elected to the post of Treasurer and relevant formalities were completed under the Societies Registration Act.
4. In the said factual background, the grievance of the complainant / petitioner/revisionist is that they have come to know that one Sh. Parvesh Kumar and other accused persons (who are arraigned as proposed accused persons in the present case totaling 9 persons) have hatched a criminal conspiracy to usurp upon the properties of the Society based on forged documents and to that end Sh. Parvesh Kumar is claiming himself to be the President of the Society although he never contested nor elected to the post of President. It is alleged that Sh. Parvesh Kumar though Member of the Society is in collusion with his brother Sh. Pawan Kumar, another Member of the Society while other proposed accused persons are not Members of the Society and they have hatched a criminal conspiracy to wrongfully take over the management of the Society to usurp upon the movable and immovable assets of the company and they in collusion with one another have forged documents viz. General Body Meetings Resolutions, attendance sheets and it is the apprehension of the petitioner/revisionist that the proposed accused persons might try to forcibly sell the assets of the Society based on forged documents. Hence, a complaint under Section 200 (3) Cr.P.C. was instituted for taking action against the proposed accused persons for offences punishable under Sections 405/406/415/417/420/120-B of IPC.
Crl. Rev. 110/20 Nariender Singh v. Parvesh Kumar Page 4 of 10IMPUGNED ORDER
5. Perusal of the trial Court record would show that the Ld. MM vide order dated 06.09.2019 was satisfied with proof of sending complaints to the higher police officers in terms of requirement of Section 154 Cr.P.C. and thereby compliance with the ratio in the Judgment by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mrs. Priyanka Srivastava & Anr. v. State of U.P. & Ors., Criminal Appeal No. 781 of 2012 decided on 19.03.2015 and in terms of decision in Subhkaran Luharuka v. State, ILR (2010) IV Delhi 495, an action taken report was called from the Police, which was submitted on 14.10.2019 by SI Naresh Kumar of PS Nangloi. The relevant extract of the said report reads as under:-
"During the course of Enquiry, Mr. Parvesh Kumar was examined who stated that in 2011, election of governing body was held with that time existing 16 members. Out of these 16 members the then present 8 members (namely Satish Chikkara, Ashok Sharma, Parvesh Kumar, Pawan Kumar, Jaya Sharma, Satya Prakash Sharma, Balwan Singh Gulia and Mrs. Santosh) cast their vote and elect him President of the Society and Ashok Sharma was elected Secretary and Narender Singh was elected treasurer (Finance Secretary) and after that in 2016 the office of the society was shifted to Plot No. 37/16 Khasra No. 76, Village Ranhola, opp. Dera Baba Bagga Singh, Delhi on 15.11.16 whereas the complainant is stating that the office is in M-16, II nd Floor, Guru Harikishan Nagar, Paschim Vihar, New Delhi and post of President was vacate during this period"
6. The IO/SI Naresh Kumar further sought time to inquire and verify aforesaid facts. However, the Ld. Judge heard the arguments on the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and the vide impugned order dated 08.06.2020 dismissed the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. observing as under:-
"The offence of forgery u/s 463 of IPC is committed when the accused makes a false document. Making a 'false document' is Crl. Rev. 110/20 Nariender Singh v. Parvesh Kumar Page 5 of 10 defined as u/s 464 of IPC. This section lays down that a person is said to make a false document when he dishonestly or fraudulently makes, signs, seals or executes a document or a part of document with the intention of causing it to be believed that the same was done by or by the authority of a person by whom or by whose authority he knows that it was not made, signed sealed or executed. Therefore, the offence of forgery may be committed while signing in the name of some other person but not while signing in own name to show that they are members or the President of the society, whereas they are not. It is merely a representation and does not amount of offence of forgery, though it may amount of the offence of cheating. If it is coupled with the transfer of any property or valuable security, regarding which there is no averment in the complaint. As far as the operating of bank account unauthorizedly is concerned, no details regarding the date, time and the amount of the transaction or the bank account of the society whatsoever have been mentioned. It seems that the complainant wishes the Court to find out whether or not the accused persons have actually committed the offence which is not among the permissible purposes for which the relief u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. can be given by the Court. Accordingly, the offence of cheating is also not made out from the averments made in the complaint. As far as the offence of criminal breach of trust is concerned u/s 406 of IPC, there has never been any 'entrustment' by the society to the accused, if the averments made in the complaint are to be believed to be true at this stage. Accordingly, the offence u/s 406 IPC is also not prima facie made out"
7. The impugned order dated 08.06.2020 is assailed in the present revision petition inter alia on the grounds that the Ld. MM has misconstrued and misinterpret the offence under Section 463 and 464 of IPC and failing to observe that Mr. Parvesh Kumar is claiming himself to be President of Society without any Certificate issued by the Registrar of Societies, and therefore, he is not having authority to act as the President of the Society and thereby impersonating himself so as to cause wrongful loss to the Society; and that the Ld. MM failed to appreciate that proposed accused persons have been operating bank Crl. Rev. 110/20 Nariender Singh v. Parvesh Kumar Page 6 of 10 account of the Society and Haryana Police is already investigating the matter after registering a FIR against them.
8. Trial Court record has been requisitioned. No notice is issued to the respondents so far.
9. It has been vociferously urged that all the relevant documents, particularly original Certificate of Registration dated 9 th September, 2008 are with the petitioner/revisionist and the Governing Body for the year 2018 to 2012 was duly election as per the bye-laws of the Society and the relevant compliances have been done with the Registrar of Societies whereas Parvesh Kumar and Pawan Kumar, who are respondent Nos. 1 and 2 have colluded with other persons and seven strangers have been introduced as Members of the Society contrary to the bye-laws of the Society and by holding sham and bogus meetings. It has been urged that almost 100 Crores of funds are at stake if the control of which is allowed to remain in the hands of the respondents/proposed accused. It would jeopardize the future of the students; and that it is a fit case where directions be given to the police to seize all the documents forged by the proposed accused persons and proceed against them for commission of various offences under the Indian Penal Code.
DECISION
10. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the submissions made by Shri Mohit Chauhan the ld. Counsel for the petitioner/revisionist who was afforded hearing through video Crl. Rev. 110/20 Nariender Singh v. Parvesh Kumar Page 7 of 10 conferencing. I have also gone through the revision file as also the trial court record and written submissions filed on record.
11. At the outset, the revision petition is devoid of any merits. The allegations levelled by the complainant/ petitioner/revisionist lack specific and material particulars. The petitioner/revisionist merely apprehends wrongful loss to the society based on some kind of fraud or forgery committed by the proposed accused persons. It is here that the Ld. MM has rightly observed that the complainant apparently wishes the Court to find out whether or not the proposed accused persons have actually committed any offence. The allegations of the petitioner/revisionist even if accepted at their face value make it apparent that there are two rival fractions, each one claiming to be governing body of the Society so as to run its affairs. Thus, in essence the real dispute is one of having control over the affairs and management of the Society, which is purely a civil dispute.
12. It was conceded by Mr. Chauhan ld counsel for the petitioner/revisionist that the parties are already in civil litigation but he lamented that so far the Court has not granted any temporary relief. There is no gainsaying that there are involved issues of interpretation of the relevant bye-laws of the Society, eligibility of membership to contest for election, holding of elections of the offence bearers and various compliances with the Registrar of Societies. The sum and substance of the allegations in the complaint would show that there expressed only some apprehension about some mischief being committed by the rival faction without anything tangible being brought on the record.
Crl. Rev. 110/20 Nariender Singh v. Parvesh Kumar Page 8 of 1013. Before parting with this criminal revision, I may humbly point out that the ratio of the case of Lalita Kumari vs State of UP, AIR 2014 SC 187 has no bearing in the instant case since bare perusal of the allegations in the complaint prima facie do not make out commission of any cognizable offence. Similarly, there is no quarrel with the proposition of law laid down in the case of Vitoori Pradeep Kumar vs Kaisula Darmiah, 2004 SCC(Cri) 440 that pendency of civil dispute does not bar filing of criminal complaint. However, in the case of M. Suresh vs. State of A.P.,(2018)15 SCC 273, it was observed that:
"we are conscious that merely because a case involves a civil dispute does not by itself bar remedy under the criminal law. At the same time, process of criminal law cannot be pressed into service merely for settling a civil dispute when no offence is committed".
14. In the instant case, except for bald allegations that the proposed accused persons have forged some documents and respondent no. 1 claims to be the President of the Society, nothing is brought on the record to prima facie substantiate such assertions.
15. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I have no hesitation in concluding that there are no urgent or compelling circumstances to order any investigation by the police. No orders/directions can be passed under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. merely on the asking of the complainant. Needless to state, since the parties are already in civil litigation, all relevant documents by virtue of which proposed accused persons claim themselves to be Members as also officer bearers or Members the governing body can be tested exhaustively in such Crl. Rev. 110/20 Nariender Singh v. Parvesh Kumar Page 9 of 10 proceedings. There is no illegality, perversity or wrong interpretation of law by the Ld. MM in dismissing the complaint. Accordingly, the present revision petition is dismissed in limine with costs of Rs10,000/- for wasting the precious time of the Court. .
16. Trial Court record along-with copy of this order be sent back. File of revision petition be consigned to Record Room.
Digitally signed by DHARMESH DHARMESH SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2020.07.27 17:33:56 +0530 Announced in the open Court (DHARMESH SHARMA) on 24th July, 2020 District & Sessions Judge (West) Tis Hazari Courts: Delhi Crl. Rev. 110/20 Nariender Singh v. Parvesh Kumar Page 10 of 10