Delhi District Court
Rajendra Kumar Goel Senior Citizen vs Icici Bank Ltd on 9 May, 2024
IN THE COURT OF SH. LOVLEEN,
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-03 (SOUTH EAST),
SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI
DLSE010094712019
CRL. REVISION No. 797/2019
1. RAJENDRA KUMAR GOEL, SENIOR CITIZEN,
S/o Late Lala Luxman Dass
R/o B-254-I, Florence Marvel,
Sushant Lok-3, Sector-57
Gurgaon-122002.
2. MANISH GOEL
S/o Rajendra Kumar Goel
R/o B-254-I, Florence Marvel,
Sushant Lok-3, Sector-57
Gurgaon-122002.
3. YATISH KUMAR GOEL
S/o Rajendra Kumar Goel
R/o B-254-I, Florence Marvel,
Sushant Lok-3, Sector-57
Gurgaon-122002.
....Revisionists
VERSUS
ICICI BANK LTD.
Crl. Revision No: 797/2019 Rajendra Kumar Goel Vs. ICICI Bank Ltd. page no. 1 of 6
Regd office: ICICI Tower
NBCC Place,
Bishama Pitamah Marg,
Opposite Sai Baba Mandir,
Pragati Vihar,
New Delhi-110003.
Through Shri Aman Mehta,
Authorized Representative.
.....Respondent
Date of institution : 23.11.2019
Date of Reserving judgment : 09.05.2024
Date of Pronouncement : 09.05.2024
Decision : Set aside.
JUDGMENT
1. This is a criminal revision petition u/s 397 Cr.PC filed against order dated 01.08.2019 passed by the court of Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate-1, SED in Criminal Complaint No.619200/2016 titled ICICI Bank Ltd. Vs. Manish Goel Ors. whereby the revisionists were summoned to face trial for the commission of offence punishable u/s 500 IPC at the instance of respondent herein.
2. The revisionists have challenged the impugned order citing multiple grounds, factual as well as legal. Revisionists object to their summoning by stating that the facts demonstrated by the respondent before the Ld. Trial Court, leading to the passing of Crl. Revision No: 797/2019 Rajendra Kumar Goel Vs. ICICI Bank Ltd. page no. 2 of 6 impugned order, are an incomplete and misleading representation of the factual picture. The legal ground cited by the revisionists is that the Ld. Trial Court failed to hold inquiry u/s 202 Cr.P.C. before ordering the summoning of the revisionists. As such, a prayer has been made to set aside the impugned order. Revisionists rely upon the observations made in ODI Jerang Vs. Nabajyoti Baruah & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 702.
3. The respondent has vehemently opposed the prayer of revisionists on all the above aspects. It is argued on behalf of respondent that the revisionists have been correctly summoned by Ld. Trial Court vide the impugned order. Respondent relies upon the observations made in Shivjee Singh Vs. Nagendra Tiwary and Others Criminal Appeal No. 1158 of 2010, decided on 06.07.2010.
DISCUSSION
4. This court has considered the above submissions and the records.
5. As per the complaint filed by respondent, two of the revisionists herein availed a home loan from itself (respondent) but the said revisionists defaulted in making payments of the EMIs. At the instance of said revisionists, the previous home loan was re-scheduled. However, again the said revisionists defaulted in payment of the loan amount. Consequently, the respondent took recourse to the provisions under SARFAESI Act. As a counter blast, the revisionists filed a complaint before Adjudicating Officer, IT Department, Delhi u/s Crl. Revision No: 797/2019 Rajendra Kumar Goel Vs. ICICI Bank Ltd. page no. 3 of 6 43/43A of IT Act levelling frivolous allegations against the officers of respondent regarding manipulation and falsification of records. The said complaint was dismissed on 13.08.2013. Costs of Rs. 25,000/- were also imposed upon the revisionist. Before the disposal of the said complaint, revisionists had sent certain defamatory emails to respondent, its officials and leading news outlets. The said emails bear allegations regarding manipulation and falsification of records and documents. Respondent claims that the said emails lowered the image of respondent in the eyes of general public at large.
6. A perusal of the TCR reflects that the Ld. Trial Court examined three witnesses in the complaint filed by the respondent against the revisionists. Thereafter, the Ld. Magistrate ordered the summoning of the revisionists for the commission of offence punishable u/s 500 IPC. In the impugned order, the Ld. Magistrate narrates the above facts in brief and then observes as under while ordering the summoning of revisionists:-
"In the present case, the complainant has made a complaint regarding levelling defamatory allegations against the accused persons. Considering the complaint, statement of the witnesses examined u/s 200 Cr.P.C, I am of the opinion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused persons and accordingly the accused persons be summoned for the offence u/s 500 IPC."
7. It is apparent from the TCR that the respondent is Crl. Revision No: 797/2019 Rajendra Kumar Goel Vs. ICICI Bank Ltd. page no. 4 of 6 aggrieved on account of defamatory email dated 18.04.2013 sent from email ID [email protected] to respondent bank, its officials and leading news outlets. TCR further reflects that another derogatory email was sent to one Ms. Aparna Mukherjee from email ID [email protected] on 27.08.2014. However, TCR does not reflect the identity of the person to whom the mail ID [email protected] belongs. It is apparent from the operative part of the impugned order that the Ld. Trial Court has not undertaken any exercise to identify the person who was using the above mentioned mail addresses (from where the defamatory emails originated). That apart, the copy of defamatory email dated 18.04.2013 Ex.CW1/4 does not even reflect the mail ID from which it was actually sent out. In the face of such circumstances, the Ld. Trial Court ought to have undertaken an inquiry u/s 202 Cr.P.C. so as to ascertain the actual facts before ordering the summoning of revisionists herein. The other relevant factor is the fact that all the revisionists are admittedly residing at a place beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the Ld. Trial Court. The same necessitated an inquiry u/s 202 Cr.P.C. (Please see the observations made by Hon'ble Supreme Court in ODI Jerang Vs. Nabajyoti Baruah & Ors. (Supra) and by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Premko Rail Engineer Ltd. Vs. State 2023 SCC OnLine Del 6511 . The observations made in Shivjee Singh Vs. Nagendra Tiwary and Others (Supra) are not applicable to the present facts and circumstances).
8. In view of the above discussion, the impugned order and Crl. Revision No: 797/2019 Rajendra Kumar Goel Vs. ICICI Bank Ltd. page no. 5 of 6 all the consequential proceedings are hereby set aside. The matter is remanded back to the Ld. Trial Court to decide the aspect of summoning afresh after complying with the provision u/s 202 Cr.P.C. The revision petition stands disposed of in the above terms. A copy of this judgment be sent forthwith to the Ld. Trial Court alongwith TCR.
9. This revision file be consigned to Record Room, as per rules.
Digitally signed by LOVLEENDictated and Announced LOVLEEN Date:
2024.05.09
16:23:16 +0530
in open Court on 09.05.2024 (Lovleen)
ASJ-03 (South East),
Saket Courts, New Delhi
Crl. Revision No: 797/2019 Rajendra Kumar Goel Vs. ICICI Bank Ltd. page no. 6 of 6