Delhi District Court
Sh. Prakash Babaso Lengare vs Alok Gupta on 17 March, 2017
IN THE COURT OF SH. RAKESH KUMAR1
ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE/SPECIAL JUDGE (NDPS)
WEST DISTRICT, TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
CR No.45/2017
Sh. Prakash Babaso Lengare,
S/o Sh. Babaso Lengare,
R/o J85, 2nd Floor, Block - J,
Rajouri Garden, New Delhi - 110027. .....Revisionist.
V E R S U S
1. The State (NCT of Delhi)
2. Sh. Alok Gupta,
S/o Sh. Sant Ram Gupta,
R/o H. No.J108, Rajouri Garden,
New Delhi - 110027. .....Respondents.
Date of filing of petition : 04.02.2017.
Date of arguments : 17.03.2017.
Date of judgment : 17.03.2017.
:J U D G M E N T:
1. This is a revision petition filed by Sh. Prakash Babaso Lengare, the revisionist, thereby impugning the order dated 24.01.2017 passed by Ld. MM02, West District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in a case bearing CC No.93/1/2016 titled as Prakash Babaso Lengare Vs. Alok Gupta, whereby while dismissing the application of revisionist filed under section 156(3) Cr.P.C for issuance of directions U/s 156(3) Cr.P.C for registration of FIR against Alok Gupta (respondent herein), the complaint of complainant filed U/s 200 Cr.P.C was also dismissed, with the observation that it will be futile exercise to continue with the complaint U/s 200 Cr.P.C on the allegations made therein.
Prakash Babaso Lengare Vs. State & Anr. (CR No.45/2017) Page No.1 of pages 5
2. The notice of the petition was accepted by Ld. Addl. PP on behalf of State.
3. The brief facts of the case (as recorded by Ld. Trial Court) are that complainant (revisionist herein) basically doing the job work (Karigar) for making the design of gold and made the golden articles. It is further stated that somewhere in the month of March, 2010, complainant approached the accused for financial assistance of Rs.70,000/ and complainant also agreed to return the said loan in eight installments of Rs.10,000/ per month, which will start after six months from the receipt date of aforesaid loan. Accused agreed to the said request of complainant and accordingly paid a sum of Rs.70,000/ in cash. At the time of giving said loan by the accused, he got signed one Pronote from the complainant and received eight signed cheques drawn on ICICI Bank, Rajouri Garden Branch, New Delhi vide saving account no. 629301501412 and blank singed papers from the complainant. After six months, complainant arranged the amount of Rs.70,000/ and he returned the loan amount of Rs.70,000/ and Rs.10,000/ as interest to the accused in one time. The accused received the amount of Rs.80,000/ from the complainant and the said Pronote was torn in the presence of complainant. Then the complainant demanded the eight blank signed cheques from the accused. At that time, accused requested the complainant that the said cheques were missing. Thereafter, complainant had gone to his native place in Maharashtra for gold business propose and after his return from Maharashtra, he stayed at the same address at Rajouri Garden. It is further alleged that gang of 34 people came to his shop/residence in Delhi and threatened him to extort money from him and also started abusing and threatened for life to the complainant. The cheques in question were lying with the accused Alok Prakash Babaso Lengare Vs. State & Anr. (CR No.45/2017) Page No.2 of pages 5 Gupta as security and now have been misused by presenting the same in the Bank and had obtained a false and frivolous report to the extent of "Fund Insufficient", whereas the bank account of the complainant was lying closed since 2008. Despite taking all efforts for getting lodged his complaint, no complaint was lodged by police in the matter and ultimately the complainant was constrained to file the complaint before Ld. Trial Court. Status report was called in the matter by Ld. Trial Court and then after hearing the arguments in the matter, vide the impugned order dated 24.01.2017, application of complainant/revisionist herein filed U/s 156(3) Cr.P.C alongwith the complaint of complainant filed U/s 200 Cr.P.C was dismissed by Ld. Trial Court, which is being assailed by the complainant on various grounds as mentioned in the petition itself.
4. I have heard Ld. Counsel for the revisionist as well as Ld. Addl. PP for the State/respondent. I have also given my prolonged consideration to the controversy in hand. I have also perused the entire material placed on record particularly, the impugned order, record summoned from the Trial Court, contents of the revision petition specially the grounds taken therein.
5. It is settled law that a Magistrate before whom a complaint is filed has the discretionary authority to either refer it to police for investigation under section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. or take cognizance of the offence and examine complainant and his witnesses on oath, as provided under section 200 Cr.P.C. In the instant case, Ld. MM02 (West) after dismissing the application U/s 156 (3) Cr.P.C, also dismissed the complaint of complainant filed U/s 200 Cr.P.C, while observing that it will be futile exercise to continue with the complaint U/s 200 Cr.P.C on the allegations made therein. A perusal of the records would reveal that sound reasons have been given by Ld. Trial Court in support of his Prakash Babaso Lengare Vs. State & Anr. (CR No.45/2017) Page No.3 of pages 5 decision on the point. Perusal of the record reveals that complainant claiming to have taken a loan of Rs.70,000/ from the accused in the year 2010 and in lieu of that he had issued eight cheques to him. In his complaint in para 14, it has been specifically averred by the complainant that bank account of complainant is lying closed since 2008. Further if it is presumed that the said transaction of giving of loan by accused to the complainant has taken place, the intention of complainant from very inception is doubtful, as admittedly he has issued cheques of the Bank Account, which according to him has already been closed since 2008. Although during the course of arguments, it was claimed by Ld. Counsel for the petitioner that the said account was closed in the year 2013 and not in 2008 but he has failed to bring any material to that effect, even before the court at revision. Further taking of loan by the complainant has been admitted by him but there is nothing on record to show that he has returned the said amount to accused, as claimed by him. Admittedly, civil suit has already been filed by the accused against the complainant regarding cheque in question and complainant can raise all these facts/ defence before the said court. Further I am in conformity with the observation of Ld. Trial Court that there is nothing in the present matter, which need any kind of interference by Court or investigation by any specialized investigating agency and after dismissing the application of complainant filed U/s 156 (3) Cr.P.C, Ld. Trial Court has also rightly dismissed the complaint of complainant U/s 200 Cr.P.C while observing that it will be futile exercise to continue with the complaint U/s 200 Cr.P.C on the allegations made therein.
6. For the above said reasons, I hold that there is no infirmity or illegality in the order passed by trial court. The criminal revision petition has no merit. Hence, the same is hereby dismissed.
Prakash Babaso Lengare Vs. State & Anr. (CR No.45/2017) Page No.4 of pages 5
7. TCR alongwith the copy of this judgment be sent to Ld. Trial Court for information.
8. Revision file be consigned to Record Room after completion of necessary formalities.
(Announced in open Court (RAKESH KUMAR1)
on 17th March, 2017) Addl. Sessions Judge/Special
Judge (NDPS) (West)
Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi
Prakash Babaso Lengare Vs. State & Anr. (CR No.45/2017) Page No.5 of pages 5