Delhi District Court
Ms Modi Innovative Education Society vs State on 17 August, 2015
IN THE COURT OF SHRI SUDESH KUMAR, ASJ-03,
SOUTH EAST DISTRICT, SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI
IN THE MATTER OF
Ms Modi Innovative Education Society
24-A, Lajpat Nagar-IV,
Ring Road, New Delhi
......Revisionist
Vs.
State ....Respondent
17.08.2015
1) Vide this petition filed under Section 397 Cr.P.C., the revisionist has assailed the order dated 19.11.2014 passed by the Ld. MM vide which an application filed under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. by the complainant/revisionist was dismissed.
2) As per the averments on 29.07.2014, the revisionist/ complainant has lodged a complaint in PS Amar Colony reporting a fraud perpetrated on the complainant Modi Innovative Education Society. As per the complaint, a sum of Rs. 4 Crores was entrusted by way of three fixed deposits, FDR receipt No. 1807383 for a sum of Rs 1 Crore, FDR receipt No. 1807384 for a sum of Rs. 1 Crore and FDR receipt No. 1807385 for a sum of Rs. 2 Crore to the Dena Bank, Malabar Hills Branch in Mumbai on 02.05.2014 which has been siphoned off in active connivance of the bank officials. A letter dated 15.07.2014 pertaining to the premature encashment of the said fixed deposit was sent to Dena Bank and reply of the same was received vide order dated 17.07.2014 stating that a fraud has been committed on the bank and that matter has been referred for further investigation and the complainant was asked to bear with them.
CR No: 18/15 Page 1 of 53) In furtherance to this the complainant was also informed that a Loan Account No. 0076510023849 was fraudulently opened in the name of Modi Innovative Education Society on FDR No. 1807384 and FDR No. 1807385. Copies of the letter dated 15.07.2014 and 17.07.2014 are also enclosed. That on further follow up, vide letter dated 22.07.2014 a request was made to the Deputy General Manager, Dena Bank for releasing the outstanding amount on FDR No. 1807383 which was unencumbered. It was apparent from the fact that the bank had misappropriated and siphoned off the money entrusted to it by the complainant and has failed in its duty to discharge the trust which has been reposed in it. A complaint in this regard was lodged with the local police station for registration of FIR which was refused, as a consequences an application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. was filed before the Ld. MM which also has been dismissed by the impugned order.
4) It is further stated by the revisionist that the Ld. MM opined that since two FIRs bearing No. 891/14 and 892/14 under Section 409 IPC were already registered in PS Amar Colony having the same parties and with allegations of same modus operandi, there was no need for registration of another FIR.
5) The revisionist has assailed the impugned order on the following grounds:
1) That the Ld. MM has failed to consider and appreciate the argument that the above-said two FIRs bearing No. 891/14 and 892/14 were not involving the same parties and neither pertaining to the same transaction.
2) That the Ld. MM fell in error, in considering that the previous two cases are identical or are between the same parties, pertaining to same offence and involving same modus operandi. The Ld. MM has confused the present application with the previous two applications wherein FIRs were directed to be registered. This fact CR No: 18/15 Page 2 of 5 is very evident from the order itself wherein the cause title of the case is mentioned to be Modi ATI Education Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State whereas the present case pertains to Modi Innovation Education Society Vs. State.
3) That the previous two applications were moved by a private company namely Modi ATI Education Pvt. Ltd. whereas the present application has been filed by a registered society named Modi Innovation Education Society.
6) I have gone through the record. The Ld. MM in the impugned order has observed as under:
"Two case FIRs No. 891/14 & 892/14 both of PS Amar Colony u/s 409 IPC having the same parties have already been registered. In these two cases as well as the present case the modus operandi of the offence is same. Even the contents of the present application are the same as the previous applications only difference being the different FDRs pertaining to different amounts.
In my view no separate registration of FIR is required in the present case when directions for registrations of FIR has already been given in two different complaints between the same parties pertaining to similar offence involving same modus operandi. The complaint related to the present application, in my belief is part of the same transaction and the direction of another FIR in the present matter would only amount to multiplicity of proceedings which are not warranted."
7) The main argument advanced by the learned counsel for revisionist is that the Ld. MM has wrongly observed that the complainant in the other two FIRs and in the present application are same. It has been vehemently argued that Modi ATI Education Pvt. Ltd. which has filed the previous two applications was a private company with different directors whereas the revisionist Modi Innovative CR No: 18/15 Page 3 of 5 Education Society was a registered society with Board of Trustees. That Modi ATI Education Pvt. Ltd. has placed two separate FDRs in Dena Bank and Punbaj and Sind Bank in a sum of Rs. 3 Crores which were also siphoned off and two separate FIRs qua them were already registered. However, Modi Innovative Education Society which is a different entity has placed three different FDRs in a sum of Rs. 4 Crores with the Dena Bank, Malabar Hills which were also siphoned off.
8) The IO in status report filed before the Ld. MM has reported that the matter is already pending investigating by Shri Neeraj Aggarwal, DCP, SBI, BS&FC, Mumbai vide FIR/ RC BSM 2014 E 0006/CBI/BS & FC, Mumbai under Section 419/420/467/468/471 & 120-B IPC read with Section 13 (1) (d) of PC Act 1988 registered on 14.07.2014. Moreover, another FIR No. 66/14 is also being investigated by EOW Unit III, CB, CID, Mumbai. The complaint received at PS Amar Colony has been sent to the office of SP/CBI Bank Securities and Fraud Cell, Ballard Estate Mumbai.
9) Counsel for the revisionist, however, also contested that there are allegations of criminal breach of trust against the concerned bank. The specific roles of the officers/ executives of the respective accused would be revealed only during investigation that should be carried out to bring guilty to book and restore siphoned amount of the complainant. The transaction with the bank was carried out through its corporate office at Lajpat Nagar. An RTGS was made to Dena Bank in Bombay through the said office. In support of his contention in regard to both Modi ATI Education Pvt. Ltd. and Modi Innovative Education Society being different entities, he has also relied upon a judgment titled "Alembic Glass Industries Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise & Customs " (2002) 9 Supreme Court Cases 463.
10) Having heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for revisionist in detail, I am satisfied with the argument that Modi ATI Education Pvt. Ltd. & Moti Innovative Education Society are CR No: 18/15 Page 4 of 5 two separate entities. The application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. filed on behalf of the revisionist pertains to three different FDRs vide which a sum of Rs. 4 Crore was entrusted to the Dena Bank by the revisionist. In my considered view, even if the complainant is same it does not preclude the Ld. MM to direct for registration of FIR in case separate offence is reported. An FIR can be lodged for the same offence by two informants when versions and nature of crime committed are different. From the allegations as raised undisputedly, cognizable offences are disclosed out. Hence, in view of the above-said the impugned order passed by the Ld. MM is set aside. The complaint is directed to be restored to its original number and remanded back to the court of Ld. MM with directions to pass a fresh order on the basis of the above-said observations. The revision petition accordingly stands disposed off.
11) The petitioner is directed to appear before Ld. Trial Court on 19.08.2015 at 02.00 PM. TCR be sent back alongwith copy of this order through Ld. CMM (SE). File pertaining to the revision petition be consigned to the record room after completion of all other necessary formalities.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT
ON 17.08.2015 (SUDESH KUMAR)
ASJ-03/SOUTH EAST/SAKET COURT
17.08.2015
CR No: 18/15 Page 5 of 5