Delhi District Court
Sh. Gulshan Kumar vs Jot Anmol Singh on 13 April, 2023
IN THE COURT OF MS. SHIVALI SHARMA, ADDITIONAL
SESSIONS JUDGE - 03: WEST DISTRICT,
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
CNR No. DLWT-01-004956-2022
CR. REV. NO. 130/22
PS - Tilak Nagar
U/s. 397 Cr.P.C.
IN THE MATTER OF:
1. Sh. Gulshan Kumar
S/o Sh. Salwan Mal Khetarpal,
H. No. 46, Naypuri, Karnal,
Haryana.
2. Ms. Jyoti Kheterpal
W/o Gulshan Khetarpal
H. No. 46, Naypuri, Karnal,
Haryana.
3. Sh. Aditya Chawla
S/o Sh. Varinder Kumar Chawla
R/o 284-R, Model Town,
Karnal, Haryana - 132 001
4. Sh. Varinder Kumar Chawla
S/o Joginder Chawla
R/o 284-R, Model Town,
Karnal, Haryana - 132 001.
....REVISIONISTS
VERSUS
1. Jot Anmol Singh
S/o Sh. Jagmohan Singh
WZ-1, 3rd Floor, B/S Khasra No. 70,
Ganesh Nagar, Tilak Nagar, New Delhi.
....RESPONDENTS
Gulshan Kumar & Ors.
Vs. Jot Anmol Singh CR No. 130/2022 Page No.1/14
Other Details :
Date of Institution : 28.05.2022
Date of Reserving Order : 31.03.2023
Date of Order : 13.04.2023
REVISION PETITION U/s. 397
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 01.10.2020 WHEREBY THE
REVISIONIST HAVE BEEN SUMMONED BY LD. MM-07,
WEST, DELHI IN CC NO. 995-2018 TO BE TRIED FOR
OFFENCES U/S 420/465/468/471/34 IPC.
ORDER:
1. The present revision petition is filed challenging the impugned order dated 01.10.2020 whereby Ld. MM -07 West, THC has summoned the revisionists namely Gulshan Kumar, Jyoti Khetrapal, Aditya Chawla and Varinder Kumar Chawla as accused persons to be tried to offences under section 420/465/468/471/34 IPC.
2. The revisionists herein are the summoned accused persons before Ld. Trial Court and the respondent herein is the complainant before the Ld. Trial Court in CC No. 995/2018. For the sake of convenience, parties shall be referred to by their nomenclature before Ld. Trial Court.
BRIEF FACTS:
3. Brief facts of the case necessary for disposal of the present revision petition are that the complainant had filed a complaint Gulshan Kumar & Ors.
Vs. Jot Anmol Singh CR No. 130/2022 Page No.2/14under Section 200 Cr.P.C, before Ld. Trial Court on 06.02.2018. An application under Section 156 (3) Cr. P. C. was also filed along with the complaint which was dismissed vide order dated 19.02.2019 and the matter was proceeded for recording of pre-summoning evidence. In support of his complaint, complainant examined two witnesses and after hearing the arguments on summoning, Ld. Trial Court directed summoning are the accused persons to be tried for the offences under section 420/465/468/471/34 IPC as prima facie offences of cheating and forgery were opined to have been made out. The order of summoning dated 01.10.2020 is under challenge in the present revision petition.
4. The allegations in the complaint are that the accused persons who are directors of M/s Delight Car Pvt. Ltd. have cheated the complainant in a calculated manner. In the month of December 2016, complainant was approached by the accused persons through their salesman Mr. Sultan at his office at Tilak Nagar regarding sale of a Volkswagen Vento Car at year end discounted price. He purchased one Volkswagen Vento Highline Diesel 1.5 Car (Candy White Color) on 18.02.2017 bearing temporary registration no. HR- 99-SJ-TEMP-4337 and permanent registration no. DL1-CW-3687 Chasis No. MEXE16606GT088808 from the dealership of the accused persons namely M/s Delight Motors Pvt. Ltd. The payment for the said car was made by the complainant to the extent of Rs. 1,52,500/- via Axis Bank Credit card, Rs. 1,65,625/- in cash to the Transport Department on 03.04.2017 and the balance payment was Gulshan Kumar & Ors.
Vs. Jot Anmol Singh CR No. 130/2022 Page No.3/14arranged through finance at EMI of Rs. 22624/-. The car was delivered to the complainant at his Tilak Nagar office.
5. At the time of purchase, the Odometer showed about 73 kilometer as the total mileage of the vehicle which was also informed to him. Everything was fine till the complainant drove about 2000 km. Around 05.04.2017 after touching 2000 km, the odometer got reset and complainant discovered that the trip meter get reset at every 1999 kilometer. When he reset the Odometer on total mileage, he was shocked to see that the car had already travelled 4917 kilometer. On cross checking the papers of the vehicle, he came to know that he was sold a "DEMO" car and not a brand new car as represented to him. He immediately contacted Mr. Sultan who tried to mislead him by stating that the car was driven from the factory situated at Pune to Karnal, Haryana. Being unsatisfied with the explanation, complainant demanded all the papers i.e. logs, bilti bills, gate passes and other paper related to the vehicle in order to verify the same.
6. Complainant also sent a detailed mail via email dated 09.04.2017 to the accused persons as well as Volkswagen company. During the course of conversation with the accused persons, they accidentally sent some papers relating to the vehicle to the complainant through e-mail which clearly showed that the fact that the car in question was a "DEMO" car was later on added in the documents of the car after the sale of the same to the complainant.
Gulshan Kumar & Ors.
Vs. Jot Anmol Singh CR No. 130/2022 Page No.4/14Thus, the documents were manipulated by making additions/alterations to this effect after the sale of the car in question. Despite earlier denial by the accused persons to the effect that the car in question was a DEMO car, subsequently vide their email dated 12.04.2017, the accused persons admitted that it was a DEMO car and falsely stated that the year end discount offered to the complainant was actually discount on account of sale of DEMO car.
7. Subsequently, the complainant got the documents sent by accused persons examined by a Forensic Expert namely Dr. Shruti Gupta who on examination found that the documents were tempered so as to add the details relating to DEMO Car and total number of kilometers on the said documents. In this manner, the accused persons have cheated the complainant in a preplanned manner by selling a DEMO car to him while representing that it was a brand new car. Documents relating to the car were also manipulated, forged and fabricated when the conduct of the accused persons in this regard came to light.
PRE-SUMMONING EVIDENCE:
8. In his pre-summoning evidence, complainant examined Dr. Shruti Gupta, Forensic Expert as CW1, who had examined the documents i.e. Disputed Sales Contract Form, Finance Documents Check List, Zero Dep. Insurance Sheet, Vehicle Feature Gulshan Kumar & Ors.
Vs. Jot Anmol Singh CR No. 130/2022 Page No.5/14Explanation Check List and Customer New Car Quality Inspection Walk Around with respect to the handwriting and signatures on the documents. After scientifically examining the documents, she observed that disputed handwritings on the documents were irrelevantly added in the places specified for some other information as well as where the signatures of the complainant were already present so as to justify and authenticate the maliciously added portions of the handwriting. Accordingly, the disputed portions were opined by her to be an act of tempering the genuine original documents by an act of additions.
9. Complainant examined himself as CW2 in pre-summoning evidence and stated and reiterated on Oath the contents of his complaint. He relied upon the following documents:
Mark CW2/1 :The copy of the email exchanged
between the parties.
Ex.CW2/2 : Legal Notice dated 22.04.2017.
Ex. CW2/3 (Colly.) : Complaints dated 25.12.2017 made to
the Police Authorities.
Ex. CW2/4(Colly.) : Reminder dated 15.01.2018 with Postal
Receipts.
Mark A : Copy of handwriting expert opinion
dated 17.11.2017.
Ex. CW2/5 :Reply dated 02.06.2017 received from
the counsels of M/s Delight Car Pvt. Ltd.
Gulshan Kumar & Ors.
Vs. Jot Anmol Singh CR No. 130/2022 Page No.6/14
Mark B (Colly.) : Photocopies of Car Insurance,
Temporary Certificate of Registration, Car Invoice, Sale Letter, Copy of Form -22, Copy of Sales Tax Invoice, Sales Contract Form, Finance Document Checklist, Zero Dep. Declaration Sheet, Vehicle Feature Explanation Checklist, Customer New Car Quality Inspection Walk Around (originals are stated to be with the accused persons).
GROUNDS OF REVISION/ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF REVISIONIST/ACCUSED PERSONS.
10. The impugned order dated 01.10.2020 has been challenged by the accused persons/revisionists on the ground that the same is incorrect, illegal and lacks propriety of finding. The complainant has suppressed material facts from the court. Ld. Trial court had failed to appreciate that the payment of Rs. 1,52,500/- dated 18.02.2017 was made by the complainant through Credit Card swiped by the complainant in Karnal, Haryana at the outlet of accused persons/revisionists. The delivery of the car was also taken by the complainant from the showroom at Karnal which is evident from the own case of the complainant that at the time of taking delivery of the vehicle the reading of the Odometer was 73 kilometer which is not possible in case the car was driven from Karnal to Delhi before delivery as the distance between Karnal to Delhi is about 179 kilometers. Accordingly, offence if any, has been made out only within the territorial jurisdiction of Karnal, Haryana.
Gulshan Kumar & Ors.
Vs. Jot Anmol Singh CR No. 130/2022 Page No.7/14Thus, Ld. Trial Court had no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint in view of the decision of the Apex Court in Kaushik Chatterjee Vs. State of Haryana & Ors. Cited as MANU/SC/0729/2020.
11. Ld. Trial Court also failed to appreciate that the various documents that are Sales Contract Form, Zero Dep. Declaration Sheet as well as Vehicle Feature Explanation Check List clearly mentioned that the car being sold was a DEMO car and had already completed 1750 kilometers and the said facts were duly acknowledged by the complainant by putting his signatures at relevant places. Ld. Trial Court had failed to appreciate the fact that the handwriting expert had not given any opinion to the effect that any of the signatures of the complainant on the documents pertaining to the car in question were forged. Ld. Trial court had failed to appreciate that there was no reason for the complainant to put 2/3 signatures on a single document in order to provide the accused persons with blank signed spaces to make the entries pertaining to the DEMO car and 1750 kilometers on the documents pertaining to the car in question. The facts of the case and law has not been appreciated properly by Ld. Trial Court before passing the impugned order dated 01.10.2020. Ld. Trial court had also failed to appreciate that the handwriting expert/CW1 had merely examined the scanned copies of the documents and the originals were never examined by her. Ld. Trial Court had failed to appreciate that the opinion of the handwriting expert was merely corroborative in Gulshan Kumar & Ors.
Vs. Jot Anmol Singh CR No. 130/2022 Page No.8/14nature and in the absence of any direct evidence, the same was of no value. In these circumstances, the impugned order has been challenged and it is prayed that the same be set aside.
ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT/ RESPONDENT:
12. Per-contra, the complainant/respondent had supported the impugned order stating that it is a well reasoned order based on evidence produced on record. There is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order dated 01.10.2020 summoning the accused persons and there is no reason for this court to interfere with the same. It is evident from record that the factum of DEMO car has not been mentioned on the Form No. 22, Sale Letter and Tax Invoice which were handed over to the complainant. However, later on, the signed document of the complainant available in original with the accused persons were manipulated by making additions to the effect that the car sold was a DEMO car. The documents that are the Sales Contract Form, Finance Document Checklist, Zero Dep. Insurance Declaration Sheet, Vehicle Feature Inspection Checklist and Customer New Car Quality Inspection Walk Around were never provided in original to the complainant and only their colored scanned copies were sent to him through e-mail after he lodged his complaint with the company. Accordingly, the complainant did not have the originals for sending to the handwriting expert and the opinion has been taken merely on Gulshan Kumar & Ors.
Vs. Jot Anmol Singh CR No. 130/2022 Page No.9/14scanned documents. The accused persons who are in possession of the originals have deliberately not produced the same as it will clearly reflect the manipulations done by them. Even otherwise the additions made in this documents is evident even from the scanned copies as the additions have been done at places where the relevant details were not required. Although, it is correct that the complainant has not disputed his signatures on these documents but the additions have been done regarding the factum of DEMO car and 1750 kilometers against the initials of the complainant at a later stage. As regards signing of the document by the complainant at 2 or 3 places, the same can be explained as they are the printed proformas on which signatures are generally done by the customers on the instructions of the dealers. Merely because there are more than one signatures on these documents, it is not sufficient to ignore the ocular testimony of the complainant at this stage and decline the summoning of the accused persons. The truth and the veracity of the allegations made by both the parties can only be tested after appreciation of evidence. However, at this stage, there is nothing on record to presume that the case of the complainant is false and thus, decline the summoning of the accused persons.
13. As regards the territorial jurisdiction of Ld. Trial Court to try the complaint, it is stated that complainant had categorically deposed that salesman of the accused persons had approached him at his office at Tilak Nagar for the sale of the vehicle in question and the delivery of the vehicle was handed over to him at his office.
Gulshan Kumar & Ors.
Vs. Jot Anmol Singh CR No. 130/2022 Page No.10/14Thus, part cause of action had arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of Ld. Trial Court. It is also submitted that there is no merit in the argument of Ld. Counsel for the accused persons/revisionists that the fact that distance between Delhi and Karnal is about 179 kilometers is sufficient to presume that the delivery was made at Karnal and not at Delhi as the cars are not transported by driving before delivery and are generally transported through carriers by road to other state before delivery. This fact is also evident from the e-mail of the complainant Mark CW2/1 wherein he had specifically stated that he had spent an extra Rs. 10,000/- for bringing the vehicle from Karnal to Delhi which cannot be the cost of driving the vehicle.
14. In these circumstances, it is submitted that there is no merit in the present revision petition. The impugned order does not deserve any interference from this court being a well reasoned order.
15. I have heard the submissions made and carefully perused the record.
FINDINGS:
16. The first ground for challenging the impugned order is that Ld. Trial Court did not have territorial jurisdiction to try the compliant case. Perusal of the complaint as well as testimony of Gulshan Kumar & Ors.
Vs. Jot Anmol Singh CR No. 130/2022 Page No.11/14complainant/CW2 clearly shows that he has alleged that part cause of action had arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of Ld. Trial Court as he was approached by Salesman of the accused persons at his office at Tilak Nagar and the delivery of the car was also made at his office. Though, these facts are disputed by accused persons, however, at this stage of summoning of the accused persons, their objections to this effect cannot be considered. Accordingly, from the complaint and pre-summoning evidence produced on record, clearly territorial jurisdiction of Ld. Trial Court in trying the complaint is reflected and accordingly, no fault can be found in the impugned order on this account.
17. As regards the objections of the accused persons/revisionists on the merits of the case, perusal of the record clearly shows that neither the invoice of the vehicle in question dated 18.02.2017 nor the Sale Letter/Form 21 dated 18.02.2017 nor Form 22 or Tax Invoice dated 28.05.2016 mentions the fact that the vehicle sold to the complainant was a DEMO car which had already run 1750 kilometers. All these three documents are type written documents and does not mention these facts. The other documents being relied upon by the accused persons wherein these facts have been mentioned that are Sales Contract Form dated 11.02.2017, Finance Document Checklist dated 18.02.2017, Zero Dep. Insurance Declaration Sheet dated 18.02.2017, Vehicle Feature Explanation Checklist dated 18.02.2017 and Customer New Car Quality Inspection Walk Around Sheet dated 18.02.2017 are all hand Gulshan Kumar & Ors.
Vs. Jot Anmol Singh CR No. 130/2022 Page No.12/14written documents wherein the manipulations are possible. Also, perusal of the documents, that are, Zero Dep. Insurance Declaration Sheet shows that the writings to the effect "DEMO car and 1750 kilometers" have been included in the column made for address while in Vehicle Features Explanation Checklist word "1750 kilometers" have been included under the column made for sales consultant. In Customer New Car Quality Inspection Walk Around, the word 1750 kilometers are added in the column meant for email ID. These additions at columns not meant for the said information give an indication that they have been added at a later stage as is the case put-forth by the complainant.
18. At this stage of summoning, only a prima facie case is to be looked into and findings beyond reasonable doubt are not required to be given. Considering the deposition of the complainant/CW2 which is supported by documents on record and the testimony of handwriting expert/ CW1, clearly a prima facie case for summoning of accused persons to be tried for the offences under Section 420/465/468/471/34 IPC is made out. The defence of the accused persons can be tested only after appreciation of evidence led by both the parties.
19. Section 397 Cr.P.C authorizes a Sessions Court to examine the record of any proceedings before any inferior criminal court for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the correctness, legality and Gulshan Kumar & Ors.
Vs. Jot Anmol Singh CR No. 130/2022 Page No.13/14propriety of any finding, sentence or order recorded or passed. I have carefully perused the record of Ld. Trial Court and I do not find any impropriety or illegality in the impugned order. It is found to be a well reasoned and correct order passed on the basis of material available on record. I do not find any reason for interfering with the same.
20. In view of the reasons given above, the revision petition stands dismissed being without any merit.
21. Impugned order on summoning dated 01.10.2020 is upheld.
22. TCR be sent back to the Ld. Trial Court with a copy of the order.
23. Revision file be consigned to Record Room.
Digitally signedAnnounced in open Court SHIVALI by SHIVALI
SHARMA
Dated: 13.04.2023. SHARMA Date: 2023.04.13 12:33:32 +0530 (Shivali Sharma) Addl. Sessions Judge-03 (West) Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi 13.04.2023.
Gulshan Kumar & Ors.
Vs. Jot Anmol Singh CR No. 130/2022 Page No.14/14