Delhi District Court
State(Govt Of Nct Of Delhi) vs Ashok Sarin on 28 January, 2015
IN THE COURT OF SH. DINESH BHATT, ASJ06 (CENTRAL)/ TIS
HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
Criminal Revision No.:01/14
Unique ID no.:02401R0028952014
State(Govt of NCT of Delhi)
Through Public Prosecutor, Central District ..........Petitioner
Versus
Ashok Sarin
S/o Sh. Anant Raj Sarin
R/o 28, Sri Ram Road, Delhi ..........Respondents/Accused
CC No. 181/2012
P.S. : Subzi Mandi
U/s : 193/181/209 IPC
Date of Institution : 15/01/2014
Date on which order was reserved : 28/01/2015
Date of Decision : 28/01/2015
O R D E R:
1. This is Revision petition u/s 397 Cr.PC against order dated 07/12/2013 whereby the respondent/accused had been discharged.
2. The case of the petitioner is that a complaint u/s 195 r/w section 340 Cr.PC was presented in the Ld. Trial Court by the complainant(Court of Ld. Civil Judge, Delhi) against accused/respondent for taking cognizance of offence u/s 181/193/209 IPC while disposing of CR no.:01/14 Page 1/5 two civil suits filed by the accused against two persons vide common judgment dated 03/07/2003. The Ld. Civil Court(complainant) found that accused had filed a false suit and deposed falsely and therefore forwarded the complainant to the court of Ld. CMM. The Ld. Trial court discharged the accused.
3. The present revision has been filed on the ground that the Ld. Trial Court did not appreciate that it could not appreciate the correctness of the decision of the Ld. Civil Court. The Ld. Trial Court did not properly appreciate that the accused had not challenged the judgment of the Ld. Civil Court nor had filed appeal u/s 341 Cr.PC. The Ld. Trial Court was required to see only prima facie allegations and was not required to meticulously appreciate the evidence of the said civil suit. Ld. Trial Court wrongly adopted the procedure u/s 245 Cr.PC, though in the present case procedure u/s 343 Cr.PC was applicable and accused could have been only discharged as per provisions of section 239 Cr.PC and not as per section 245 Cr.PC. The Ld. Trial Court also failed to appreciate that the statement of accused as PW1 and statement of all other witnesses establish that accused had filed a false suit and had made false statement despite being aware of the falsity of his statement. The Ld. Trial Court also did not consider the main averment made by the accused in the said two civil suits that the defendant had sold the property in question to some unknown person despite agreement to sale executed with him, which was falsified when the 5 purchaser of the property in question had entered into another agreement with Anant Raj Agency of which the accused was the director and one of the purchaser M/s Gulmohar Estate where accused was also a director for the relevant period in question. Thus, the said accused was aware of the said sale transaction.
4. I have heard Ld. Counsels for the parties and have also perused the Trial Court Record. Ld. Counsel for respondent has also relied on written arguments filed before Ld. CR no.:01/14 Page 2/5 Trial Court and submitted authorities to show inquiry under section 340 Cr.PC was required before forwarding of the complaint.
5. Ld. Addl.PP has mainly argued that the impugned order is liable to be set aside on the grounds:
1. That the finding of the civil suit had not been challenged by the respondent accused, therefore were final and the Ld. Trial Court could not have reappreciated the findings given by the said court.
2. That the procedure applicable for the present case was as detailed under section 343 Cr.PC and not as applicable to complaints filed otherwise then on police report.
3. The Ld. Trial Court had erroneously come to the conclusion that offence under section181,193 and 209 IPC was not made out.
4. The Ld. Trial Court had tried to minutely appreciate the evidence of the civil suits which at the stage of charge was not required and the same could have been done only after being given opportunity to lead evidence.
6. Ld. Counsel for the respondent has stated that there was no infirmity in the order and the Ld. Trial Court had rightly appreciated the evidence at the stage of framing of charge. There was nothing on record to show that the respondent had himself been beneficiary of any of the transaction claimed by the defendants of civil suit. There was no document to show that respondent had himself signed the same or that the beneficiary were acting as his nominees. There was no false statement or intention and respondent had not availed any benefit out of the transactions in question.
CR no.:01/14 Page 3/5
7. In the present case, respondent accused had filed two civil suits against the defendants before the Ld. Civil Judge on the ground that defendants had entered into an agreement to sale their land to him, he paid earnest money but the defendants instead of executing sale deed in his favour had sold the land to third person. The respondent, therefore claimed refund of his earnest money. The Ld. Civil Court found that in fact respondent/accused had himself made defendant to execute sale deeds in favour of the said third party and companies of which he was himself director and thus it was proved that respondent had filed a false claim and had deposed falsely before the court. The Ld. Civil Judge thereafter forwarded the complaint for initiating criminal proceedings u/s 193/181/209 IPC.
The Ld. Trial Court vide impugned order has held that as per section 245 Cr.PC which stipulates that after taking all the evidence referred to in section 244 Cr.PC, the Magistrate considers that no case against the accused has been made out which if unrebutted would warrant his conviction could discharge the accused and in the present case there was no material on record which could be converted into legally admissible evidence showing that the accused had intentionally made false statement or had filed false suit for recovery of money or that there was no intention on his part to injure and annoy any person, discharged the accused.
8. The Ld. Trial Court committed an error while relying on provisions of section 245 Cr.PC which is applicable to cases instituted otherwise than on police report whereas the present case was a complaint forwarded by the court u/s 195 r/w section 340 Cr.PC which was to be dealt as per section 343 Cr.PC. The same required that the complaint u/s 340 Cr.PC was to be dealt as if it were instituted on a police report and thus for discharge if any only section 239 Cr.PC would have been applicable and not section 245 Cr.PC. There is CR no.:01/14 Page 4/5 material difference between the two provisions as under section 239 Cr.PC discharge could be ordered only if the court considers charge against the accused to be groundless and was not required to minutely appreciate evidence on record.
9. In the present case the complainant(Ld. Civil Judge) had come to the conclusion that a false suit had been filed and false evidence had been led. The said judgment/findings had not been challenged/reversed. Ld. Counsel for respondent also argued that no preliminary inquiry under section 340 Cr.PC had been conducted and thus the complaint itself was not maintainable. However, in this regard the said order u/s 340 Cr.PC could have been challenged under section 341 Cr.PC but the same has not been done. On merit there are various sale deeds and one of the sale deed Ex.DW1/1 is shown to be executed in favour of M/s Gulmohar Estate through Sh. Ashok Sarin(respondent/accused) which at this stage, could shows that respondent was atleast aware of the said sale deed executed by the defendants.
10. In the complaint forwarded by the Ld. Civil Judge, the Ld. Trial Court at the stage of charge was only required to see if there was prima facie material for proceeding in the matter but Ld. Trial Court tried to minutely appreciate the whole evidence of civil suits in question which at the said stage was not required.
11. Accordingly, Revision is allowed. Impugned order is set aside. Trial Court record alongwith copy of the order be sent back. File be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in the open court (DINESH BHATT)
on 28/01/2015 ASJ/Delhi/28/01/2015
CR no.:01/14 Page 5/5