Delhi District Court
State vs Puneet Parashar on 12 September, 2014
IN THE COURT OF SH SANJAY BANSAL:
ADDL SESSIONS JUDGE-03 (East):
KARKARDOOMA COURTS: Delhi
Criminal Revision No.: 76/14
(02402R0062742014)
State .....Revisionist.
Vs
1. Puneet Parashar
S/o Sh Yashpal Parashar
R/o 24/6-B, Moti Nagar, New Delhi
2. Sachin Batra
S/o Sh. Subhash Batra
R/O H. No. T-889, Mangolpuri, Delhi
3. Ashok Kumar
S/o Sh. Mahesh Chand
R/o H. No. Ward No. 18, Surat Garh
Distt. Sri Ganga Nagar, Rajasthan
4. Rajdeep Maan
S/o Late Sh. Satpal Singh
R/o 77, Sec. 3, R.K. Puram, New Delhi
5. Neeraj Jain
S/o Sh. Naresh Kumar Jain
R/o F-11/34, IInd Floor, Krishna Nagar, New Delhi
6. Aditya Gupta
Director of M/s. Serco BPO Pvt Ltd
In Operation at A 14/1,
Naraina Industrial Area, Delhi ..... Respondents.
Date of Institution: 25.02.2014
Order Reserved on: 09.09.2014
Date of Order: 12.09.2014
FIR No.: 115/09
PS: Crime Branch
U/s: 385/34 IPC
Crl. Revision No. 76/2014 State Vs. Puneet Parashar etc. Page No. 1 of 5
ORDER:
1. The State has come up with this criminal revision petition under Sec. 397/399 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ("CrPC") against order dated 20.11.2013 ("impugned order") passed by learned CMM (East) whereby all the respondents herein were discharged for the offence punishable under Section 385/34 Indian Penal Code ("IPC").
2. I have heard Shri Abdul Aleem, learned Chief Prosecutor for State/revisionist; V.K. Chaudhary, learned counsel for respondent no. 1 to R 3, Sh. Pradeep Kumar, learned counsel for respondent No. 4, Sh. Tarun Singh, learned counsel for respondent no. 5 and Sh. Paritosh Budhiraja, learned counsel for respondent no. 6. The record including TCR has also been perused.
3. Present FIR was registered on the basis of written complaint of one Mr. J.K. Mittal, Advocate, who alleged that he was receiving calls on his mobile phone number 98101587979 from various numbers and the callers were giving him threats for recovery of amount of ICICI Bank. Complainant submitted that he had no connection with the said bank. It is also alleged that he was also receiving SMS's regarding payment of amount. It is also alleged that despite his various requests to ICICI bank officials, and callers too, that they should call the right person but they did not pay any heed. It is alleged that such repeated calls disturbed his work and also mental peace and his family.
4. FIR was registered under Section 385/34 IPC and the matter was investigated into by Crime Branch. After investigation, chargesheet was filed Crl. Revision No. 76/2014 State Vs. Puneet Parashar etc. Page No. 2 of 5 against accused persons namely Punit Parashar, Sachin Batra, Ashok Kumar, Rajdeep and Neeraj Jain and also one Adiya Gupta Director of M/s Serco BPO Ltd. to face trial for the offence punishable under Section 385/34 IPC.
5. Learned CMM (East) after considering the material on record came to the conclusion that no case for framing of charge against any of the accused was made out since the phone calls were made due to mistake and not with any dishonest intention.
6. The defence version was that in the records of the bank, mobile phone number 9810153797 was wrongly fed as 9810158797. The figure "3" was wrongly noted/fed as "8".
7. Relying upon case titled as Dhananjay @ Dhananjay Kumar Singh Vs. State of Bihar & Anr. [2007 Crl LJ 1440], learned CMM (East) accepted the version of the defence and held that accused persons can not be tried for a criminal offence for their bonafide mistake and discharged all the accused persons.
8. Learned Chief Prosecutor submitted that offence under Sec. 385 IPC was clearly made out from the complaint. He pointed out that complainant had requested to ICICI Bank officials to check the records of loan of the credit card but despite that phone calls were made to the complainant.
9. Learned counsels for the respondents submitted that it was a bonafide mistake.
10. It is not in dispute that phone calls were made to the complainant Crl. Revision No. 76/2014 State Vs. Puneet Parashar etc. Page No. 3 of 5 on behalf of ICICI Bank. What is to be seen is that whether making of those phone calls constitute any criminal offence or not?
11. Section 385 IPC is reproduced as follows:
Putting person in fear of injury in order to commit extortion - Whoever, in order to the committing of extortion, puts any person in fear, or attempts to put any person in fear, of any injury, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.
12. The word Extortion has been defined in Sec. 383 IPC which is as under:
Whoever intentionally puts any person in fear of any injury to that person, or to any other, and thereby dishonestly induces the person so put in fear to deliver to any person any property or valuable security, or anything signed or sealed which may be converted into a valuable security, commits "extortion".
13. As observed in Dhananjay's case (supra), element of dishonesty has to exist if the offence of extortion is to be established. Learned CMM has rightly observed that there was no dishonest intention in making calls to the complainant. Same was a bonafide mistake. The record of the loan papers/credit card application of the original applicant was collected during investigation. One mobile phone number is also written in the said application. I have seen the same. The mobile phone number is written in such a manner that it could be easily read as 9810158797. This incorrect mobile phone number was fed into the system of the concerned bank and ultimately the bank ended up calling the complainant for recovery of the due amount. It is an admitted position that money was due from the original applicant i.e. Laltesh Vohra. In these circumstances, making of calls to the complainant at mobile phone no. 9810158797 cannot be Crl. Revision No. 76/2014 State Vs. Puneet Parashar etc. Page No. 4 of 5 called a dishonest act. No doubt making of the phone calls to the complainant must have caused harassment to him but this cannot be counted as an offence under Section 385/34 IPC. At the most, a civil action could be brought by the complainant. Learned CMM rightly relied upon Dhananjay's case (supra).
14. There is no infirmity or error in the impugned order of learned CMM and therefore, this revision petition is dismissed.
15. A copy of this order be placed in the TCR and it be sent back to the concerned court immediately.
16. File of revision petition be consigned to Record Room. Announced in open court on 12th day of September, 2014 (Sanjay Bansal) ASJ-03 (East) KKD Courts: Delhi.
Crl. Revision No. 76/2014 State Vs. Puneet Parashar etc. Page No. 5 of 5