Delhi District Court
Mohan Singh vs The State on 3 January, 2012
In the Court of Sh. Atul Kumar Garg, Additional Sessions
Judge04, South District, Saket Court, New Delhi.
Criminal Revision No. 88/2011.
In the matter of :
Mohan Singh,
M/s. Gian Singh and Company,
B213 Naraina Industrial Area,
New Delhi. .....Revisionist.
Versus
The State ......Respondent.
Date of Assignment : 24.12.2011.
Reserved for order on : 03.01.2012.
Date of decision : 03.01.2012.
Fresh revision petition received on assignment. It be checked
and registered.
Present : Counsel for the revisionist.
Arguments have been heard.
O R D E R
1. The revisionist has assailed the order dated 15.11.2011 passed by Sh. Rakesh Pandit, learned ACMM, Saket Court whereby his Mohan Singh v. State Page No.1/5 application under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. was dismissed in complaint case no.148/2011, titled as Mohan Singh v. Puneet Beriwala and Ors. According to the revisionist, the said order is illegal, improper and incorrect and is contrary to the settled law. The learned MM has wrongly stated that police investigation is not required but the same is required to recover and retrieve the agreement to be executed licence and approvals granted by HUDA in respect of the said unit/ property from the accused persons; to recover and retrieve the cheated amount which could be affected at the instance of the accused persons as per requirement of section 27 of the Evidence Act, 1872. In his contention, he has relied upon Amit Khera v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi, decided by Delhi High Court on 11.08.2010 where it was held that "Section 200 Cr.P.C. requires a Magistrate to take cognizance of an offence on a complaint. When a complaint is made before the Magistrate, the Magistrate has to examine complainant and other witnesses present, on oath and he has to record substance of such examination and asked the complainant and witnesses to sign the same. However, a complaint can be made before the learned MM orally as well as in writing". He prayed that the order be recalled and setaside. Alongwith the revision petition, a copy of the complaint has also been filed by the revisionist.
Mohan Singh v. State Page No.2/5
2. As per averments made in the copy of the complaint annexed with the revision petition, one Amrik Singh approached the complainant and projected himself to be representative of M/s. Taneja & Co. (P) Ltd. Having its registered officer at C108, Mansrover Garden, New Delhi and he further represented that he is one of the authorised dealers/ brokers of the company namely M/s. Vipul Limited, Mr. Amrik Singh further represented that M/s. Vipul Limited owns various commercial properties in Delhi and parts of the NCR. He represented that the company M/s. Vipul Limited owns the property bearing nomenclature 'ITECH PARK', Sector 49 on Sohna Road, Gurgaon, Haryana. He further represented that the said property is a commercial IT property and suitable for office and offered complainant to purchase a space of approximately 1000 sq.ft. super area @4,500 per sq.ft. on the first floor of the said project inclusive of all charges. In the meeting, terms were discussed. The revisionist had agreed to purchase the area of 1000 sq.ft. on the first floor of the said project. He has made the payment of Rs.6,75,000/ against receipt. Thereafter, he further made payment of Rs.4,50,000/ to M/s. Vipul Limited against the receipt. It was further represented to the complainant that due to some change in HUDA/ Government policy the project cannot be constructed under their company M/s. Mohan Singh v. State Page No.3/5 Vipul Limited but the same would be constructed under the name of M/s. Spaze Towers Pvt. Ltd. stated that complainant to make further payment of Rs.4,50,000/ in the name of M/s. Spaze Towers Pvt. Ltd. so that the portion at the first floor can be allotted to complainant. He had made further payment vide cheque in the name of M/s. Spaze Towers. However, after considerable time, the written allotment letter received by him of the allotment of 11th floor of Tower B2 measuring 987sq. ft. on payment of sale consideration of Rs.40,94,626/. He was shocked on receipt of the letter because he was allotted space in the first floor of the said project but instead was allotted the space at the 11th floor altering the same from 987 sq.ft. to 1009 sq.ft. and raised further demand for the increased price on 13.09.2007. He had written another letter in this regard but no promise was made by the accused. As such he has filed the present criminal complaint against the accused. As per revisionist, he had also filed an application under section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. alongwith the complaint with prayer to the learned MM to direct the police to register the FIR. That Prayer was declined by the learned MM vide order dated 15.11.2011 observing that the grievance/ dispute appears to be cropped when the allotment of the complainant was cancelled otherwise the facts are within the knowledge of the complainant. Evidence is documentary in nature Mohan Singh v. State Page No.4/5 which was in access of the complainant. The matter was fixed for summoning of evidence.
3. If the facts, as stated in the complaint is perused, then it appears that the matter is of civil nature. The complainant had agreed to give the remaining amount to M/s. Spaze Towers Pvt. Ltd. for allotment of the space. The entire documentary evidence from the day one to the receiving of the allotment letter were in the possession of the revisionist. The revisionist can produce the same before the trial court. The trial court has not committed any error while dismissing the application under section 156 (3) Cr.P.C.
4. In view of my above discussion, I do not find any illegality, impropriety and incorrectness in the order passed by the learned MM. Hence, the revision petition is dismissed accordingly. A copy of this order be sent to the trial court. Revision file is consigned to record room.
Announced in the open court (Atul Kumar Garg)
On 03.01.2012. Additional Sessions Judge04,
South District, Saket Court,
New Delhi.
Mohan Singh v. State Page No.5/5