Delhi District Court
Sh. Arun Bahl ......Complainant vs . on 1 October, 2021
IN THE COURT OF SH. PRAYANK NAYAK
LD. MM-01: PATIALA HOUSE COURTS: NEW DELHI.
CC No. 43379/16
Sh. Arun Bahl ......Complainant
vs.
Vinod Suri ..... Accused
01.10.2021
Present: None.
1.Vide this complaint, complainant seeks summoning of proposed accused Vinod Suri, Jaiveer Yadav and Prem Bahadur for offence punishable u/s 406/415/420/120B IPC.
2. Four witnesses have been examined by the complainant in support of his evidence. The complainant has examined himself as CW2. CW1 is the official witness from Reserve Bank of India, who has proved the FFMC licence issued to the firm of the complainant. CW3 is the police witness, who has proved the destruction of record of police department, which includes the complaint dt. 04.06.2009 made by Sh. Prem Bahadur. CW4 has brought on record the Show cause, issued by NDMC to Sh. Prem Bahadur.
3. Record perused. Arguments heard.
4. The law with respect to summoning of accused is well settled in the case reported as Pepsi Foods Ltd. & Ors V. Special Judicial Magistrate & Ors Arun Bahl vs. Vinod Suri 1 [AIR 1998 SC 128], wherein it is held by Hon'ble Apex Court that -
"summoning of an accused in a criminal case is a serious matter. Criminal Law can not be set into motion as a matter of course. It is not that the complainant has to bring only witnesses to support his allegations in the complaint to have the criminal law set into motion. The order of Magistrate summoning the accused must reflect that he has applied his mind to the facts of the case and the law applicable thereto. He has to examine the nature of allegations made in the complaint and the evidence both oral and documentary as well in support thereof and would that be sufficient for the complainant to succeed in bringing charge home to the accused. It is not that the Magistrate is a silent spectator at the time of recording of preliminary evidence before summoning of accused."
Similarly in the case of D.K. Pandey V. State [2010 (VII) AD (Delhi) 881], it has been held that before passing summoning order, it is obligatory on the part of the Ld. MM to consider materials and evidence placed on record in the light of the offences committed and analyze it so as to come to the conclusion whether commission of offences in terms of the provisions of law was disclosed or not.
5. In this case, as seen above, all the witnesses except the complainant are official witnesses. The only material witness is the complainant himself, who has deposed as under -
"I am operating money exchange business from N-54A, Connaught Circus, New Delhi in the name of CDS money exchange, Bureue private limited. For this purpose RBI grants me FFMC license for money exchange business. During the relevant year 2009, the RBI granted the license which is already Ex.CW-1/1. Accused no. 3 Prem Bahadur approached me for franchise at N-52, Connaught Place, New Delhi. I had entered into agreement with him on 05.05.2008. As per the terms and conditions of the agreement dated 05.05.2008, accused no. 3 had agreed to give me this premises and to use N-52 from ground floor, first floor and 2 floor and to Arun Bahl vs. Vinod Suri 2 construct the same. Agreement dated 05.05.2008 (which is wrongly typed as 2008 instead of 2009) is Ex.CW-2/1 . I paid a sum of Rs.20,000/- as advance to accused no. 3 for which he executed a receipt dated 05.05.2008. The said receipt is Ex.PW-2/2. Accused no. 3 handed over the premises to me for carrying out the renovation and for starting the money exchange business as per the RBI guidelines. Accused no. 1 Mr. Vinod Surha and accused no. 2 Mr. Jaivir Yadav started objecting to start my new business at the new premises. The accused no. 1 and 2 removed my money safe and cash box and furniture. The accused no. 3 has also executed another agreement dated 10.06.2009 which is Ex.CW-2/3. Consequently I made a complaint to SHO PS Connaught Place against accused no. 3 and Director of M/s Karam Yogi Finance leasing Pvt. Ltd which is accused no. 1. The complaint dated 13.06.2009 is Ex.CW-2/4. No action was taken by the police despite complaint made by me. Thereafter I filed the present complaint under Section 156 (3) Cr.PC before the Hon'ble Court which bears my signature at point A. Complaint is Ex.CW-2/4. My complaint is correct."
6. As seen above, the complainant has no where stated that he has entrusted/handed over anything to the proposed accused with the intention of retaining its ownership. The sum of Rs.20,000/- was paid by the complainant as an advance towards use of premises. Further, it is not the case of the complainant that after the payment of advance he was not handed over the premises for renovation or for running his business. Hence, neither the offence of cheating nor the offence of Criminal Breach of Trust is made out.
7. The complainant has also deposed that Vinod and Jaiveer had objected to his new business and have removed his money safe, cash box and furniture. However, he has not deposed that the same was removed in his presence nor has the date of said incident been mentioned. Moreover, in his complaint made to the police which is Ex.CW-2/4, it has been stated that he was informed by Mr. Prem Bahadur that some of the people have removed the counters and the cash box. In the said complaint it is also stated that Mr. Prem Bahadur was threatened. However, Mr. Prem Bahadur was arrayed as accused Arun Bahl vs. Vinod Suri 3 by the complainant instead of being cited as a witness.
8. In view of the abovesaid discussion the court is of the view that the material produced by the complainant, does not disclose commission of any offence by any of the persons arrayed as accused. Accordingly, the complaint stands dismissed u/s 203 Cr.P.C.
File be consigned to Record Room after due compliance.
Digitally signed by PRAYANK NAYAK PRAYANK Date:
NAYAK 2021.10.01
16:51:56
+0530
(Prayank Nayak)
MM-01/PHC/New Delhi
01.10.2021
Arun Bahl vs. Vinod Suri 4