Delhi District Court
The Buddhist Society Of India @ Bhartiya ... vs The State (Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi) on 10 April, 2023
IN THE COURT OF SH. SANJAY SHARMA-II : ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE-03,
(CENTRAL): TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
Criminal Revision No. 243/2020
CNR No.: DLCT01-007635-2020
1. The Buddhist Society of India @ Bhartiya Baudh Maha Sabha
(A Society duly registered under The Societies Registration Act,
1860 and Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950)
Head Office:
Buddh Bhusan Press
Gokul Dass Pasta Road
Dadar, Mumbai-14
Through its Chairman:
Mr. Ashok Mukund Rao Ambedkar
02, Sungrace Apartment, Akal
C.H.S.J.B. Nagar, Andheri (East)
Mumbai-400 059
Through his Attorney:
Mr. C.S. Bhandari, President of its Delhi Branch
Branch Office:
Ambedkar Bhawan, Rani Jhansi Road
New Delhi-110055
Also at: A-103, Gali No. 3
East Nathu Colony, Mandoli Road
Delhi-110093
2. C.S. Bhandari
S/o Late Revati Prasad
R/o A-103, Gali No. 3, East Nathu Colony
Mandoli Road, Delhi-110093
..... Petitioners
VERSUS
1. The State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)
2. C.M. Pippal
S/o Sh. Roshan Lal
R/o RZ/7/60, Gali No. 12
Tughlakabad Extension, New Delhi
3. Udaivir Singh Baudh
58, Abhay Khand-I, Indirapuram
Ghaziabad, U.P.
Crl. Rev. 243/2020 The Buddhist Society of India @ Bhartiya Baudh Maha Sabha & Anr. vs. State & Ors. 1 / 20
4. Vishal Singh Dinkar
B-13F, MIG DDA Flats (Vatika Apartments)
Mayapuri, New Delhi
5. R.S. Gautam
842, Krishna Gali No. 10
Maujpur, Delhi
6. Bhim Singh Baudh
349/1, Ambedkar Marg
Ravidass Gali, Mandawali
Shakurpur East, Delhi
7. C.L. Kardam
2-B/136, Sector-II, Vaishali
Ghaziabad, U.P.
8. Kharak Singh
30/42, Gali No. 9
Vishwas Nagar, Delhi-110032
9. Mahesh Chandra Gautam
D-I/633, Main Gali 13
Ashok Nagar, Delhi-110093
10. J.P. Singh
218, Lumbini Apartments
Kaushambi, Ghaziabad, U.P.
11. Chhajju Singh
198, Gali No. 2
Bhola Nath Nagar Extn., Delhi-110032
12. Daulat Singh
2707, Gali No. 30 to 34
Tughlakabad Extension
New Delhi-110019
13. Sujata Amborey
B-1076, MIG Flats
Purvi Loni Road, Dr. Ambedkar Road
Delhi
14. Captain Sumer Singh
343/4, Gali Asharam-4
Mandawali, Delhi-110092
15. Tej Singh
N-928, Mangolpuri
Delhi-110083
Crl. Rev. 243/2020 The Buddhist Society of India @ Bhartiya Baudh Maha Sabha & Anr. vs. State & Ors. 2 / 20
16. Rashmi Sagar
1/4313, Ram Nagar Extension
Mandoli Road, Shahdara
Delhi-110032
17. Hari Kishan
3758/19, Raigar Pura
Delhi-110005
18. Ram Singh Nawal
1/543, Sector 1, Vaishali
Ghaziabad, U.P.
19. Ram Niwas
H. No. 4, Gram Sabha Colony
Prahladpur Bangar, Delhi-110042
20. Jai Singh
H. No. 47, Village Bhagwanpur
Faridabad
21. Ramhet Lal
H. No. 48, Jatav Mohalla
Village Pipron Charori
District Dhaulpur, Rajasthan
22. Nawab Singh
397, CGS Complex, Ekta Vihar
New Mumbai, Maharashtra-410 614
23. Deepak Singh
1661A, Railway Colony
Gujrati Chaul, Mahu Road, Ratlam
Madhya Pradesh
24. Ramdev Ram
228, Anand Nagar, Siwan
Bihar
25. Hussain Lal Baudh
1038, Buta Mandi, Jalandhar City
Punjab
26. Gopal Singh Gautam
Village Sukh Shanti Nagar
Post Office Adarsh Nagar
District Udham Singh Nagar
Uttarakhand
Crl. Rev. 243/2020 The Buddhist Society of India @ Bhartiya Baudh Maha Sabha & Anr. vs. State & Ors. 3 / 20
27. Bhisham Pal Singh
L-66, Sector 9, New Vijay Nagar
Ghaziabad, U.P.
28. Bhartiya Baudh Mahasabha Delhi
Regn. No. S-925/2014
Through its President: Mr. C.M. Pippal
Ambedkar Bhawan, New Delhi-110055
29. Bhartiya Baudh Mahasabha Delhi
Through its President: Mr. R.S. Gautam
Ambedkar Bhawan, New Delhi-110055
..... Respondents
Date of Institution : 04.11.2020
Date of Arguments : 17.02.2023
Date of Judgment : 10.04.2023
JUDGMENT
1. The criminal revision petition under Section 397 of 'The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973' (Hereinafter referred to as 'Cr.PC.') is directed against order dated 05.10.2020 (In short 'the impugned order') in complaint vide CC No. 5285/2017 titled as 'The Buddhist Society of India @ Bhartiya Baudh Maha Sabha & Anr. vs. C.M. Pippal & Ors.' whereby Ld. ACMM-01, Central District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi (In short 'the trial Court') declined to issue summons to the respondent No. 2 to 29 and dismissed the complaint.
BRIEF FACTS:
2. The petitioners filed an application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. seeking registration of FIR against the respondent No. 2 to 29 alleging commission of offences under Section 120-B 201, 205, 378, 441, 403, 405, 467, 468 and 471 of 'The Indian Penal Code, 1860' (Hereinafter 'IPC') on averments that the petitioner No. 1 is a Society registered under 'The Societies Registration Act, 1860' and 'Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950' at Mumbai.
Crl. Rev. 243/2020 The Buddhist Society of India @ Bhartiya Baudh Maha Sabha & Anr. vs. State & Ors. 4 / 20
3. According to the petitioners, Mr. Ashok Mukund Rao Ambedkar, Chairman of the petitioner No. 1 authorized the petitioner No. 2 to file the complaint, vide General Power of Attorney dated 09.12.2016. The petitioner No. 2 is a President of Delhi Branch of the petitioner No. 1 and he is also competent to file the complaint in his individual capacity.
4. According to the petitioners, the petitioner No. 1 was established by Hon'ble Dr. B.R. Amdedkar. He got it registered under 'The Societies Registration Act, 1860', vide registration No. 3227 dated 04.05.1955 and 'Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950', vide registration No. F-982 (Bombay) dated 06.07.1962 for propagation of Buddhism and other charitable activities throughout India. The petitioner No. 1 is recognized throughout India as 'The Buddhist Society of India @ Bhartiya Baudh Maha Sabha'. The petitioner No. 1 has its branches in all the States of India. The petitioner No. 1 has its branch in Delhi with its Head Office at 'Ambedkar Bhawan, Rani Jhansi Road, New Delhi-110055'. It has around 100 sub-branches in Delhi. Delhi Branch of the petitioner No. 1 and its sub-branches are working under the patronage of the petitioner No. 1.
5. The case of the petitioners is that the respondent No. 2 to 27 entered into a criminal conspiracy to usurp reputation and movable properties of the petitioners. The respondent No. 2 to 27 prepared false proceedings dated 27.12.2013 which was signed by 17 respondents and 23 other persons. The respondent No. 2 to 27 filed a 'Memorandum of Association' before the Registrar of Societies on 01.02.2014. The respondent No. 2 filed a false affidavit before the Registrar of Societies.
Crl. Rev. 243/2020 The Buddhist Society of India @ Bhartiya Baudh Maha Sabha & Anr. vs. State & Ors. 5 / 20
6. It is further case of the petitioners that the respondent No. 2 to 27 got a deceptively similar society registered under the name and style as 'Bhartiya Baudh Maha Sabha', vide registration No. S-925/14 dated 17.07.2014 without knowledge and consent of the petitioner No. 1. The respondent No. 2 to 27 did not vacate head office of the petitioner No. 2 at 'Ambedkar Bhawan, Rani Jhansi Road, New Delhi-110055' which was occupied by them as office bearers of the petitioner No. 1. The respondent No. 2 to 27 are impersonating themselves as the president and office bearers of the petitioner No. 1.
7. According to the petitioners, Delhi Branch of the petitioner No. 1 is functioning at 'Ambedkar Bhawan, Rani Jhansi Road, New Delhi-110055' since 1956 and acquired several movable and immovable properties. The respondent No. 2 to 27 were office bearers of Delhi Branch of the petitioner No. 1 and they dishonestly and fraudulently misappropriated records, account books and properties of Delhi Branch of the petitioner No. 1. The respondent No. 2 to 27 are using telephone number 2060513754 and electricity connection installed in the name of the petitioner No. 1 in 'Ambedkar Bhawan'.
8. It is further case of the petitioners that the petitioner No. 1 had savings bank accounts in 'Punjab National Bank, Pahar Ganj, New Delhi', vide S.B. A/c No. (i) 0130000100379141, (ii) 0130000100326112, (iii) 0130000100514762 and (iv) 0130000100691225. The said bank accounts had lakhs of rupees. The respondent No. 2, 5 and 6 were authorized to withdraw the amount. They dishonestly withdrawn amount from the said bank accounts and misappropriated the amount of the petitioner No. 1.
Crl. Rev. 243/2020 The Buddhist Society of India @ Bhartiya Baudh Maha Sabha & Anr. vs. State & Ors. 6 / 20
9. It is further case of the petitioners that the petitioner No. 1 had two rooms and a book stall in its head office 'Ambedkar Bhawan, Rani Jhansi Road, New Delhi-110055'. The respondent No. 2 to 27 usurped the books, namely, 'Bhagwan Buddha and Dhamma', 'Dhamma Darpan' and other literature relating to Buddhism and Dr. Ambedkar Mission. The respondent No. 2 to 27 also published the said books in the name of 'Bhartiya Baudh Maha Sabha' and thereby deceived subscribers of the petitioner No. 1 and public at large. The respondent No. 2 to 27 committed offences punishable under Section 378, 381, 411, 416, 418 and 424 IPC. The respondent No. 2 to 27 removed name and other inscriptions on the walls of the office of the petitioner No. 1 and written their own and thereby, they committed offence under Section 427 IPC. The respondent No. 2 filed a false affidavit before the Registrar of Societies that he is owner of head office of the petitioner No. 1 i.e. 'Ambedkar Bhawan, Rani Jhansi Road, New Delhi-110055' and thereby, he committed offence under Section 464 IPC. The respondent No. 2 had not taken any 'No Objection Certificate' from owner of 'Ambedkar Bhawan, Rani Jhansi Road, New Delhi-110055' i.e. 'Delhi Scheduled Caste Welfare Association' for registration of 'Bhartiya Baudh Maha Sabha'.
10. It is further case of the petitioners that holy ashes of Dr. Baba Saheb Ambedkar and a Budh Monk, namely, Chandra Mani were kept in the said office. However, the respondent No. 2 to 27 also usurped them. The petitioners filed a complaint with SHO, PS Pahar Ganj and DCP (Central), Delhi, vide complaints dated 20.10.2016. However, they did not take any action. Therefore, the petitioners filed the said application.
Crl. Rev. 243/2020 The Buddhist Society of India @ Bhartiya Baudh Maha Sabha & Anr. vs. State & Ors. 7 / 20 STATUS REPORT:
11. SHO, PS Pahar Ganj filed status report, as under:
"Enquiry:- In this regard, it is further submitted that the enquiry into the matter has been thoroughly conducted by SI Harpal Singh. During enquiry, it has been found that alleged is running a society in the name and style of "Bhartiya Baudh Mahasabha, Delhi" situated at Budh Vihar, Ambedkar Bhawan, Rani Jhansi Road, Delhi. The alleged C.M. Pippal has been joined in enquiry into the matter and he denied the allegations levelled against him. He has submitted written reply to E.O / SI Harpal Singh (attached for kind perusal). According to it, the alleged C.M. Pippal is holding the post of the President of alleged Society since 2014. The alleged society has been stated to be registered with Societies Registration Act XXI of 1860 vide S/95/2014 and it has a total number of 104 Sub-Branches in all over India. As far as Baudh Vihar Book Shop and Bank Account (earlier in the name of Buddhist Society of India) is concerned, it was being operated by alleged Society but later on a new A/c at Punjab National Bank was opened by alleged society in its original name. Election in alleged society was held in the year 2010 and three persons were elected for a period of three years for controlling the alleged society.
During further course of enquiry, Complainant Sh. C.S. Bhandari has also been joined in enquiry who stated that he has been appointed as President of the Buddhist Society of India situated at Dr. B.R. Ambedkar Bhawan, New Delhi on 05.04.2016 by the Chairman of this Society situated at Mumbai. He added that C.M. Pippal has occupied the office inside Ambedkar Bhawan illegally and he wants to take possession of that office. Complainant also stated that he has sent a legal notice to The Union of India (through Secretary), Ministry of Home Affairs and The Registrar of Societies, GNCT, Delhi on dated 15.12.16. He also stated that they would move to the court for legal remedy for the possession of said office.
Sh. Daulat Ram, the General Secretary, SC/ST Welfare Society, Ambedkar Bhawan, Delhi was joined in enquiry who stated that the office of complainant society i.e. The Buddhist Society of India is in existence at Ambedkar Bhawan for last 60 years. C.M. Pippal is occupying his office at Ambedkar Bhawan since year 2010.
Crl. Rev. 243/2020 The Buddhist Society of India @ Bhartiya Baudh Maha Sabha & Anr. vs. State & Ors. 8 / 20 From the enquiry, it has been found that both the societies are registered with Registrar of Societies as per law. No office of the complainant Sh. S.C. Bhandari or the society "The Buddhist Society of India, Delhi" has been found at Ambedkar Bhawan, Delhi.
Conclusion:- From the enquiry conducted by E.O / SI Harpal Singh, no office of the complainant Sh. C.S. Bhandari or the society "The Buddhist Society of India, Delhi" has been found at Ambedkar Bhawan, Delhi. Office of alleged Sh. C.M. Pippal has been found at Ambedkar Bhawan, Baudh Vihar, Delhi which is registered with the Registrar of Societies as per law. Complainant has stated that they would move to court for legal remedy for possession of office of their society at Ambedkar Bhawan. It is a matter of civil nature. No cognizable offence has been committed in the matter. Hence, no police action is called for. Hence, if approved, the complaint may be filed."
DISMISSAL OF APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 156 (3) CR.P.C.:
12. The trial Court, vide order dated 24.03.2018, dismissed the application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. The trial Court provided opportunity to the petitioners to lead pre- summoning evidence.
PRE-SUMMONING EVIDENCE:
13. In pre-summoning evidence, the petitioners examined the petitioner No. 2 as CW-1. He relied on General Power of Attorney dated 09.12.2016 Ex.CW1/A, Affidavit dated 01.02.2014 filed by the respondent No. 2 before the Registrar of Societies Mark 'A', a copy of registration No. S/925/2014 pertaining to 'Bhartiya Baudh Maha Sabha, Delhi' dated 17.07.2014 Mark 'B', telephone bill dated 03.03.2017 Mark 'C', a copy of dis-connection notice of electricity connection dated 09.02.2017 alongwith a copy of electricity bill dated 19.10.2016 Mark 'D', copy of pages of book 'Dhamma Darpan' Mark 'F' and copy of complaint dated 20.10.2016 Mark 'G'.
Crl. Rev. 243/2020 The Buddhist Society of India @ Bhartiya Baudh Maha Sabha & Anr. vs. State & Ors. 9 / 20
14. CW-2 Mr. Umesh Malhotra, Deputy Manager, Punjab National Bank, Pahar Ganj Branch, New Delhi-110055 brought summoned record pertaining to A/c numbers (i) 0130000100379141, (ii) 0130000100326112, (iii) 0130000100514762 and (iv) 0130000100691225 in the name of 'Buddhist Society' Ex.CW2/A (colly., 47 pages).
15. CW-3 Manish Kumar, DEO Office of District Magistrate, Central District, 14 Daryaganj, Delhi-110002 proved application for registration of the Society, namely, 'Bhartiya Baudh Maha Sabha, Delhi' at Ambedkar Bhawan, Rani Jhansi Road, New Delhi-110055 Ex.CW3/A, Constitution of the Society alongwith 'Memorandum of Association' of 'Bhartiya Baudh Maha Sabha, Delhi' Ex.CW3/B, Affidavit dated 01.02.2014 filed by the respondent No. 2 before the Registrar of Societies Ex.CW3/C, proceedings dated 27.12.2013 signed by 17 members and other 23 members of 'Bhartiya Baudh Maha Sabha, Delhi' Ex.CW3/D, list of office bearers and members of 'Bhartiya Baudh Maha Sabha, Delhi' ExCW3/E, identity proof of members / subscribers of 'Bhartiya Baudh Maha Sabha, Delhi' Ex.CW3/F and certificate of registration of 'Bhartiya Baudh Maha Sabha, Delhi' dated 17.07.2014 Ex.CW3/G.
16. CW-4 Ct. Vinod proved a copy of complaint dated 20.10.2016 Ex.CW4/A and enquiry report dated 02.04.2017 Ex.CW4/B.
17. CW-5 Paramjeet Panwar, Manager, BYPL, Delhi brought electricity bill dated 17.08.2019 pertaining to CA No. 100376671 Ex.CW5/A, reading chart Ex.CW5/B and account statement pertaining to the said electricity connection installed in the name of 'Pradhan Buddhist Society of India' Ex.CW5/C. Crl. Rev. 243/2020 The Buddhist Society of India @ Bhartiya Baudh Maha Sabha & Anr. vs. State & Ors. 10 / 20 CRIMINAL REVISION:
18. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned order, the petitioners preferred the criminal revision petition.
APPEARANCE:
19. I have heard arguments of Mr. Narendra Gautam, Advocate for the petitioners and Mr. Shiv Kumar Gautam, Advocate for the respondent No. 2 and 28, and perused written arguments filed by the parties and examined trial Court record. CONTENTIONS OF LD. COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONERS:
20. Ld. Counsel for the petitioners contended that the respondent No. 2 to 27 got registered a society deceptively similar to the petitioner No. 1 as 'Bhartiya Baudh Maha Sabha, Delhi' on 17.07.2014 and the respondent No. 2 filed a false affidavit dated 01.02.2014 that he is president of a non-existent society 'Dr. Ambedkar Bhawan, Rani Jhansi Road, New Delhi- 110055'. He contended that the respondent No. 2 to 27 prepared false proceedings dated 27.12.2013. He contended that the respondent No. 2 to 27 usurped movable and immovable properties and reputation and credibility of the petitioner No. 1. He contended that the respondent No. 2, 5 and 6 were office bearers of the petitioner No. 1 and they did not vacate the premises of the petitioner No. 1. He contended that the respondent No. 2 to 27 withdrawn amount from savings bank accounts of the petitioner No. 1 and the impugned order deserves to be set-aside.
Crl. Rev. 243/2020 The Buddhist Society of India @ Bhartiya Baudh Maha Sabha & Anr. vs. State & Ors. 11 / 20
21. Ld. Counsel for the petitioners contended that the trial Court did not examine the oral and documentary evidence and passed the impugned order without applying judicial mind. He contended that the respondent No. 2 to 27 formed a deceptively similar society without 'No Objection Certificate' from the petitioner No. 1 and usurped movable and immovable properties of the petitioner No. 1. He contended that the petitioners have already filed two civil cases for cancellation of registration of the respondent No. 28 and 29. He contended that the trial Court did not peruse the documents produced by CW-3 Manish Kumar from the office of Registrar of Societies. He contended that the trial Court made wrong observation that the issue is relating to election of the petitioner No. 1. He contended that statement of CW-2 Umesh Malhotra, Deputy Manager, Punjab National Bank, Pahar Ganj Branch, New Delhi would show that the respondent No. 2, 5 and 6 were authorized to operate the said accounts of the petitioner No. 1. He contended that the trial Court did not consider that an amount of Rs. 11,86,000/- was illegally transferred by the respondent No. 2, 5 and 6 from the said accounts of the petitioner No. 1 to their newly constituted society for their personal gains. He contended that electricity meter and telephone connection installed in the office are still in the name of the petitioner No. 1. He contended that the respondent No. 2 to 27 entered into a criminal conspiracy and committed offences punishable under Section 120-B, 406, 441, 447 and 379 IPC.
Crl. Rev. 243/2020 The Buddhist Society of India @ Bhartiya Baudh Maha Sabha & Anr. vs. State & Ors. 12 / 20 CONTENTIONS OF LD. COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT NO. 2 AND 28:
22. Ld. Counsel for the respondent No. 2 and 28contended that the petitioners have no locus to file the criminal revision petition. He contended that the petitioner No. 2 has not filed any authority letter issued in his favour by the petitioner No.
1. He contended that there is no document that the petitioner No. 2 is president of the petitioner No. 1. He contended that the petitioner No. 2 has no concern with the petitioner No. 1. He contended that the dispute is essentially civil in nature. He contended that there are four civil suits pending between the parties, vide CS No. 734/2020 before Sh. Hemraj, Ld. ADJ, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi, CS No. 132/2018 before Sh. Hemraj, Ld. ADJ, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi, CS No. 1134/2017 before Sh.
Anurag Chhabra, Ld. Civil Judge, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi and one Misc. DJ/885/2018 before Sh. Arun Sukhija, Ld. ADJ, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi. He contended that the petitioners are misusing criminal administration of justice to exert pressure upon the respondent No. 2 to 29. He contended that vide order dated 11.02.2022, the Court of Sh. Hemraj, Ld. ADJ-08, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in CS No. 734/2020 observed that transactions of Rs. 11,86,000/- were done by the respondent No. 2, 5 and 6 in their official capacity. He contended that the trial Court rightly applied its judicial mind and dismissed the complaint. ANALYSIS OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER:
23. The trial Court passed the impugned order on the following grounds:
(a) The petitioners failed to lead any cogent evidence that affidavit filed by the respondent No. 2 was false;
Crl. Rev. 243/2020 The Buddhist Society of India @ Bhartiya Baudh Maha Sabha & Anr. vs. State & Ors. 13 / 20
(b) There is no finding by the Registrar of Societies that the respondent No. 2 was not authorized to file the said affidavit;
(c) The original affidavit has not been placed on record;
(d) Prima facie, it appears to be an internal election matter of the society;
(e) No cognizable offence seems to have been committed;
(f) The evidence of CW-2 Umesh Malhotra, Deputy Manager, Punjab National Bank, Pahar Ganj Branch, New Delhi is deficient on material aspects pertaining to operation of the said accounts and transfer of the amount;
(g) There is no oral or documentary evidence that the respondent No. 2 to 29 committed any cheating or usurped the amount of the petitioner No. 1; and
(h) The dispute is primarily civil in nature and the petitioners must avail appropriate civil remedy.
LAW:
24. Section 203 Cr.P.C. is as under:
"203. Dismissal of complaint.- If, after considering the statements on oath (if any) of the complainant and of the witnesses and the result of the inquiry or investigation (if any) under section 202, the Magistrate is of opinion that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding, he shall dismiss the complaint, and in every such case he shall briefly record his reasons for so doing."
25. Section 204 Cr.P.C. is as under:
"204. Issue of process.-(1) If in the opinion of a Magistrate taking cognizance of an offence there is sufficient ground for proceeding, and the case appears to be-
(a) a summons-case, he shall issue his summons for the attendance of the accused, or
(b) a warrant-case, he may issue a warrant, or, if he thinks fit, a summons, for causing the accused to be brought or to appear at a certain time before such Magistrate or (if he has no jurisdiction himself) some other Magistrate having jurisdiction."
Crl. Rev. 243/2020 The Buddhist Society of India @ Bhartiya Baudh Maha Sabha & Anr. vs. State & Ors. 14 / 20 JUDICIAL PRECEDENTS:
26. In Pepsi Foods Ltd. And Another vs. Special Judicial Magistrate and Others, (1998) 5 SCC 749, Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held, as under:
"28. Summoning of an accused in a criminal case is a serious matter. Criminal law cannot be set into motion as a matter of course. It is not that the complainant has to only bring two witnesses to support his allegations in the complaint to have the criminal law set into motion. The order of the 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 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 the accused. The Magistrate has to carefully scrutinise the evidence brought on record and may even himself put questions to the complainant and his witnesses to elicit answers to find out the truthfulness of the allegations or otherwise and then examine if any offence is prima facie committed by all or any of the accused."
ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION:
27. The case of the petitioners is that the respondent No. 2 to 27 got registered a deceptively similar society, namely, 'Bhartiya Baudh Maha Sabha, Delhi' with the Registrar of Societies, Central District, Govt. of NCT of Delhi on 17.07.2014 without consent of the petitioner No. 1. The petitioners have not led any evidence that any person is deceived by 'Bhartiya Baudh Maha Sabha, Delhi' as the petitioner No. 1. The petitioner No. 1 is admittedly in existence since 04.05.1955 and it has its branches all over India. The petitioner No. 1 is having its branch in Delhi since 60 years.
Crl. Rev. 243/2020 The Buddhist Society of India @ Bhartiya Baudh Maha Sabha & Anr. vs. State & Ors. 15 / 20
28. Therefore, in the absence of any cogent evidence, it cannot be said that 'Bhartiya Baudh Maha Sabha, Delhi' is deceptively similar to the petitioner No. 1 i.e. 'The Buddhist Society of India'.
29. It is further case of the petitioners that the respondent No. 2 filed a false affidavit dated 01.02.2014 before the Registrar of Societies Ex.CW3/C that he is a president of a non-existent society, namely, 'Dr. Ambedkar Bhawan, Rani Jhansi Road, New Delhi-110055'. It is admitted case of the petitioners that the respondent No. 2, 5 and 6 were office bearers of the petitioner No. 1 in the year 2010 and they were in possession of 'Dr. Ambedkar Bhawan, Rani Jhansi Road, New Delhi-110055'. The respondent No. 2 sought registration of 'Bhartiya Baudh Maha Sabha, Delhi', vide application Ex.CW3/A and 'Memorandum of Association' Ex.CW3/B. They also filed proceedings dated 27.12.2013 for registration of 'Bhartiya Baudh Maha Sabha, Delhi'. Therefore, prima facie, there is no false declaration in the said affidavit dated 01.02.2014. The documents furnished for registration of 'Bhartiya Baudh Maha Sabha, Delhi' must be read as a whole and not in isolation.
30. It is further case of the petitioner No. 2 that he is president of Delhi Branch of the petitioner No. 1. The petitioner No. 2 appeared as CW-1. He stated that the respondent No. 2 was elected president for the Delhi Branch of the petitioner No. 1 in the year 2010. Thereafter, the petitioner No. 1 removed him from the post of president and dissolved the executive committee headed by the respondent No. 2 and appointed him president of New Managing Committee of Delhi Branch of petitioner No. 1.
Crl. Rev. 243/2020 The Buddhist Society of India @ Bhartiya Baudh Maha Sabha & Anr. vs. State & Ors. 16 / 20
31. However, there is no material that the head office of the petitioner No. 1 removed the respondent No. 2 and executive committee headed by him and appointed the petitioner No. 2 as president of New Managing Committee. It is admitted case of the petitioners that the respondent No. 2 was governing Delhi Branch of the petitioner No. 1 from 'Dr. Ambedkar Bhawan, Rani Jhansi Road, New Delhi-110055'. Therefore, it cannot be said that the respondent No. 2 to 27 trespassed into the premises of the petitioners and using electricity and telephone connection installed in the said premises in the name of the petitioner No. 1. Primarily, it appears to be an issue pertaining to authority of governing the petitioner No. 1 from 'Dr. Ambedkar Bhawan, Rani Jhansi Road, New Delhi-110055'. In that regard, the petitioners must prove that 'Dr. Ambedkar Bhawan, Rani Jhansi Road, New Delhi-110055' was owned or leased to them, the respondent No. 2 to 27 has no authority to run their society from 'Dr. Ambedkar Bhawan, Rani Jhansi Road, New Delhi-110055', the petitioner No. 2 is the president of Delhi Branch of the petitioner No. 1, the petitioners are entitled to use an occupy 'Dr. Ambedkar Bhawan, Rani Jhansi Road, New Delhi-110055' to the exclusion of the respondent No. 2 to 29 and the respondent No. 2 to 29 are in unauthorized possession of 'Dr. Ambedkar Bhawan, Rani Jhansi Road, New Delhi-110055'. All these questions are civil in nature and they can only be subject matter of a civil suit. Admittedly, there are several civil suits between the petitioners and the respondent No. 2 to 29. The criminal proceedings launched by the petitioners for prosecution of the respondent No. 2 to 29 on the allegations which are primarily civil in nature is an abuse of process of criminal law and it must not be permitted.
Crl. Rev. 243/2020 The Buddhist Society of India @ Bhartiya Baudh Maha Sabha & Anr. vs. State & Ors. 17 / 20
32. It is further case of the petitioners that the respondent No. 2, 5 and 6 were authorized signatory of bank accounts of the petitioner No. 1 and they transferred an amount of Rs. 11,86,000/- to the account of the petitioner No. 28 i.e. 'Bhartiya Baudh Maha Sabha, Delhi'. In that regard, they relied upon deposition of CW-2 Umesh Malhotra, Deputy Manager, Punjab National Bank, Pahar Ganj Branch, New Delhi-110055 and statement of account Ex.CW2/A (colly.). A perusal of statement of CW-2 Umesh Malhotra, Deputy Manager, Punjab National Bank, Pahar Ganj Branch, New Delhi-110055 stated that the said four accounts in the name of 'The Buddhist Society' are 30-40 years old and he cannot state as to who opened and operating the said four accounts.
33. As regards transfer of an amount of Rs.
11,86,000/- i.e. an amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- from A/c No. 0130000100379141 on 14.03.2015, an amount of Rs. 86,000/- and Rs. 1,00,000/- from A/c No. 0130000100326112 on 12.09.2014 and 14.03.2015 and an amount of Rs. 8,00,000/- from A/c No. 0130000111691225 on 14.03.2015, it can be stated that there is need of evidence that the petitioner No. 1 and the respondent No. 28 are distinct entities and the said amount was transferred by the respondent No. 2, 5 and 6 and they had transferred the said amount unauthorizedly and they have misappropriated the said amount. These questions can only be raised and adjudicated before Civil Court. Moreover, the evidence on record is deficient in that regard. In the presence of the evidence on record, it cannot be said that the respondent No. 2, 5 and 6 had transferred the said amount to the respondent No. 28.
Crl. Rev. 243/2020 The Buddhist Society of India @ Bhartiya Baudh Maha Sabha & Anr. vs. State & Ors. 18 / 20
34. If so, there is no evidence that the respondent No. 2, 5 and 6 transferred the said amount unauthorizedly. There is no evidence that the respondent No. 2, 5 and 6 misappropriated the said amount. Mere certain entries pertaining to transfer of amount of Rs. 11,86,000/- from the accounts of 'The Buddhist Society' to the account of the respondent No. 28 cannot lead to the inference that the respondent No. 2, 5 and 6 misappropriated the said amount.
35. This Court is of the considered opinion that the averments made in the complaint and pre-summoning evidence, oral and documentary, do not show prima facie commission of any offence. The trial Court rightly declined to issue summons to the respondent No. 2 to 29 on the premise that there was no sufficient ground to proceed against them and dismissed the complaint.
CONCLUSION:
36. Therefore, this Court does not find any legal infirmity or material illegality or jurisdictional error in the impugned order which would occasion injustice, if it is not set- aside. Accordingly, the criminal revision petition filed by the petitioners is dismissed. A copy of judgment alongwith trial Court record be sent to trial Court. The criminal revision file be consigned to record room. Digitally signed SANJAY by SANJAY SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2023.04.10 16:04:03 +0530 Announced in the open Court SANJAY SHARMA-II on this 10th April, 2023 Addl. Sessions Judge-03 (Central) Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi Crl. Rev. 243/2020 The Buddhist Society of India @ Bhartiya Baudh Maha Sabha & Anr. vs. State & Ors. 19 / 20 The Buddhist Society of India @ Bhartiya Baudh Maha Sabha vs. State & Ors.
CNR No.: DLCT01-007635-2020 Crl. Revision No. 243/2020 10.04.2023 Present : Mr. Banarsi Lal, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr. Mohd. Shanu, Proxy Advocate for Mr. Shiv Kumar Gautam, Advocate for the respondent No. 2 and 28.
The petitioner No. 2 is present.
Vide separate judgment, the criminal revision petition filed by the petitioners is dismissed. The criminal revision file be consigned to record room.
Digitally signedSANJAY by SANJAY SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2023.04.10 16:04:22 +0530 Sanjay Sharma-II ASJ-03, Central District Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi NK 10.04.2023 Crl. Rev. 243/2020 The Buddhist Society of India @ Bhartiya Baudh Maha Sabha & Anr. vs. State & Ors. 20 / 20