Delhi District Court
Daya Singh vs Punjab & Sind Bank on 25 February, 2022
IN THE COURT OF SH. SANJAY SHARMA-II : ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE-03,
(CENTRAL): TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
Criminal Revision No. 490/2017
CNR No.: DLCT01-015503-2017
Daya Singh
S/o Sh. Lachman Dass
Manager, Punjab & Sind Bank
R/o 54-P, Sector-56, Sohna Road,
Gurgaon, Haryana
..... Petitioner
VERSUS
1. Punjab & Sind Bank
Through its: Chairman & Managing Director
2. S.S. Kohli, Chairman & Managing Director
Punjab & Sind Bank
3. R.K. Sarin, General Manager
Punjab & Sind Bank
4. Swaroop Singh, Deputy General Manager (Personnel)
Punjab & Sind Bank
5. Gajendra Singh, General Manager (Personnel)
Punjab & Sind Bank
6. U.S. Kohli, Deputy General Manager (Personnel)
Punjab & Sind Bank
7. M.S. Sarang, the then General Manager
Punjab & Sind Bank
8. B.M.S. Bakshi, Deputy General Manager
Punjab & Sind Bank
9. Ravi Kumar, Assistant General Manager
Punjab & Sind Bank
10. A.S. Narang, Chief Manager
Punjab & Sind Bank
Crl. Rev. No. 490/2017 Daya Singh vs. Punjab & Sind Bank & Ors. Page No. 1 of 19
11. Trilochan Singh Soni, Manager
Punjab & Sind Bank
12. Amarjit Singh Bhatia, Manager
Punjab & Sind Bank
All the respondents at:
21, PSB House, Rajendra Palace,
New Delhi-110008
..... Respondents
Date of Institution : 25.10.2017
Date of Arguments : 18.10.2021
Date of Judgment : 25.02.2022
JUDGMENT
1. This is a classical case of misuse and abuse of legal procedure.
2. The petitioner, a Branch Manager at Branch Office (earlier an extension counter), Punjab and Sind Bank at Guru Nanak Girls Degree College, Sunder Nagar, Kanpur, U.P. in the year 1997-99, was dismissed for embezzlement, after a departmental enquiry, vide order dated 06.06.2003.
3. In an inspection conducted by Vigilance on 08.03.1999, it was revealed that 20 loans to the extent of Rs. 16,48,000/- were disbursed to some persons against Fixed Deposit Receipts (FDRs) of other persons. On 09.03.1999, when Zonal Manager, Lucknow, U.P. made enquiry from the petitioner, he left the branch leaving behind a letter of voluntary retirement without handing over charge of the articles and documents of the said branch to any responsible officer. On 11.03.1999, the respondent No. 8 sent a telegram to the petitioner to join his duty immediately.
Crl. Rev. No. 490/2017 Daya Singh vs. Punjab & Sind Bank & Ors. Page No. 2 of 19
4. The petitioner was suspended on 12.03.1999. On 13.03.1999, the respondent No. 11 lodged a complaint with PS Nazirabad, Kanpur City, Kanpur, U.P. for registration of a criminal case against the petitioner. Thereafter, FIR No. 52/99 under Section 409/420/467/468/471 of 'The Indian Penal Code, 1860' (In short 'IPC') was registered against the petitioner on 14.03.1999. The petitioner was arrested in the said criminal case.
5. On 11.01.2000, the petitioner was served a notice to show cause as to why disciplinary action be not initiated against him.
6. After departmental enquiry, disciplinary authority imposed penalty of dismissal from service alongwith recovery of monetary loss vide order dated 06.06.2003.
7. Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, vide judgment dated 28.07.2010 in 'The General Manager (P), Punjab and Sind Bank & Ors. vs. Daya Singh', Civil Appeal No. 4120 of 2007, upheld conclusions of the inquiry officer and penalty of dismissal from service.
8. In the complaint case, the petitioner arrayed all the bank officers who were concerned with reporting of misconduct, lodging of FIR, initiation and conduct of departmental enquiry, filing of civil suit against the petitioner for recovery of embezzled amount or filing of special leave petition (SLP) as the accused persons, who were discharging their official duties in accordance with rules and regulations.
Crl. Rev. No. 490/2017 Daya Singh vs. Punjab & Sind Bank & Ors. Page No. 3 of 19 CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION:
9. 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 07.09.2017 (In short 'the impugned order') in complaint case vide CC No. 730/1/14 (Old No. 142/1/11) titled as 'Daya Singh vs. Punjab & Sind Bank & Ors.' whereby Ld. MM-01, Central District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi (In short 'the trial Court') declined to summon the respondents and dismissed the complaint case under Section 203 Cr.P.C.
BRIEF FACTS:
10. The petitioner instituted a complaint case under Section 200 Cr.P.C. for prosecution of the respondents for offences punishable under Section 409/420/467/468/471/ 500/506 IPC on averments that the petitioner was Manager, Punjab & Sind Bank at Sunder Nagar, Kaushal Puri, Kanpur, U.P. He served the said bank for 25 years with unblemished record.
11. The petitioner relinquished his office on 09.03.1999 and submitted application for voluntary retirement as per service rules and regulations of the said bank. The petitioner was intending to leave his job since 1994 and he had earlier applied for voluntary retirement vide application dated 19.11.1994. The respondent No. 8 directed the petitioner to join duty vide letter No. 298 dt. 11.03.1999. The petitioner received the said letter at his residence in Gurgaon on 13.03.1999.
Crl. Rev. No. 490/2017 Daya Singh vs. Punjab & Sind Bank & Ors. Page No. 4 of 19
12. In the meantime, the respondent No. 11 lodged a criminal complaint with PS Nazirabad, Kanpur City, Kanpur, U.P. on 13.03.1999 against the petitioner on false grounds in breach of service regulations. The respondent No. 8 placed the petitioner under suspension on 12.03.1999. PS Nazirabad, Kanpur City, Kanpur, U.P. registered a criminal case vide FIR No. 52/99 under Section 409/420/467/468/471 IPC against the petitioner in haste in breach of service rules and regulations. The respondent No. 11 lodged the said complaint on false grounds to harass the petitioner. The police did not investigate the facts and verified service regulations. The respondent No. 11 did not appear before Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. He did not appear for cross-examination during departmental enquiry. The petitioner sent letter dated 15.03.1999 to the respondent No. 8 alongwith a copy thereof to local police containing his explanation. It appeared that local police was satisfied with his explanation as they did not take any action against the petitioner. On 19.02.2000, the petitioner learnt that Investigating Officer visited his residence. Immediately, the petitioner sent his explanation to Circle Officer, PS Nazirabad, Kanpur City, Kanpur, U.P. vide letter dated 21.02.2000.
13. On 10.01.2000, the respondent No. 8 served show cause notice upon the petitioner. The petitioner again applied for voluntary retirement under 'One Time Voluntary Retirement Scheme-2000' vide application dated 01.12.2000 as no action was taken on his application dated 09.03.1999.
Crl. Rev. No. 490/2017 Daya Singh vs. Punjab & Sind Bank & Ors. Page No. 5 of 19
14. The respondent No. 12 pressurized local police and pursuant thereto, the petitioner was arrested on 27.12.2000. The petitioner was released on bail on 24.12.2001 pursuant to order of Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad.
15. The respondent No. 12 filed a civil suit for recovery against the petitioner vide CS No. 304/2002 before Civil Court at Kanpur, U.P. The respondent No. 7 authorized the respondent No. 12 to institute the said suit vide authorization letter dated 30.05.2001. As the trial Court did not frame charges in the criminal case nor any departmental enquiry was instituted and therefore, there was no occasion to authorize the respondent No. 12 to institute recovery suit against him.
16. The petitioner received a charge-sheet dated 30.10.2000, vide unsigned letter dated 10.01.2001, through registered post dated 12.01.2002 on 14.01.2002. The petitioner submitted reply thereto on 23.01.2002. The respondent No. 8 initiated departmental enquiry in violation of service rules and regulations and appointed the respondent No. 10 as 'Inquiry Officer'. The petitioner challenged the departmental enquiry. However, the respondent No. 10 directed him to appear before him on 22.02.2002 vide order dated 04.02.2002. The respondent No. 12 sent a notice dated 28.02.2002 calling upon him to pay an amount of Rs. 16,48,000/-. The said action was not in accordance with law as the departmental enquiry was under process. The respondents neither withdrawn notice nor got the recovery suit stayed.
Crl. Rev. No. 490/2017 Daya Singh vs. Punjab & Sind Bank & Ors. Page No. 6 of 19
17. The petitioner was dismissed from service on recommendation of the respondent No. 10. He did not examine Inspecting Officer who conducted inspection on 25.07.1998, Vigilance Officer who conducted inspection on 18.09.1998 and Officer who conducted half yearly inspection on 28.09.1998. He did not consider the reply submitted by the petitioner. The respondent No. 9 dismissed the petitioner from service in breach of rules and regulations. The respondent No. 3 dismissed the petitioner's appeal. The respondent No. 3 did not decide review petition filed by the petitioner. Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad directed the respondent No. 3 to decide review petition within 8 weeks vide order dated 22.03.2004. The petitioner filed a contempt petition against the respondent No. 1, 3, 4 and 9 before Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad.
18. Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad, vide judgment dated 25.01.2007, set-aside dismissal of the petitioner and directed disciplinary authority to hold a fresh enquiry and reinstated him. The respondent No. 1 and 5 challenged the said order dated 25.01.2007 vide Civil Appeal No. 4120 of 2007. Hon'ble Supreme Court of India allowed the said appeal vide judgment dated 28.07.2010. The respondents prosecuted the petitioner and instituted civil suit for recovery in absence of any provision in this regard and conclusion of enquiry. Such prosecution and institution of recovery suit against the petitioner amounts to fraud, concealment of facts and distortion of the facts. Hence, the petitioner filed the said complaint.
Crl. Rev. No. 490/2017 Daya Singh vs. Punjab & Sind Bank & Ors. Page No. 7 of 19 TRIAL COURT PROCEEDINGS:
19. The trial Court directed local police to conduct a preliminary enquiry into the allegations made by the petitioner.
20. Vide status report dated 18.04.2012, SI Pawan Kumar stated as under:
"In this regard it is submitted that the complainant has filed a petition before Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad against his dismissal on which the Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad in his order dated 25.01.2007 set aside the order of Disciplinary Authority of dismissing of the petitioner and directed the Disciplinary Authority to hold a fresh inquiry against the petitioner in accordance with law and to pass appropriate orders if necessary accordingly and the petitioner may be treated as reinstated for the limited purpose of holding inquiry afresh. On this the bank was moved to the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India against the judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad and the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has set aside the impugned Judgment and order passed by the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court. The petition filed by the respondent in the High Court will stand dismissed. Consequently, contempt proceedings initiated by him will also stand dismissed.
It is further submitted that charge has been framed against the complainant in case F.I.R No. 45/99 u/s 409/420/467/468/471 IPC PS Nazirabad, Kanpur Nagar, U.P. and the case is pending trial. Although the F.I.R. was registered against the complainant in P.S. Nazirabad, Kanpur Nagar, U.P., civil suit against the complainant was also filed in the Ld. Civil Court, Kanpur, U.P. and the departmental enquiry was also conducted by the Zonal Officer, Kanpur, U.P., hence nothing has been happened in the jurisdiction of P.S. Prasad Nagar so jurisdiction of P.S. Prasad Nagar is not made out."
21. The application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. seeking registration of FIR was dismissed on 30.03.2013.
Crl. Rev. No. 490/2017 Daya Singh vs. Punjab & Sind Bank & Ors. Page No. 8 of 19
22. In pre-summoning evidence, the petitioner examined himself as CW-1. He relied on show cause notice dated 11.01.2000 Ex.CW1/1, certified copy of order dated 31.08.2016 in Civil Suit No. 304/2002 passed by Ld. AJSCC-II, Kanpur Nagar, U.P. Ex.CW1/2, copy of reply to special leave petition (Criminal) No. 7575/2008 dated 26.05.2009 Mark A, copy of promotion letter dated 23.08.1997 Mark B, copy of complaint dated 29.06.2004 to SHO, PS Nazirabad, Kanpur Mark C, Copy of ledger-sheet pertaining to 20 FDRs Mark D and copy of invitation to up-gradation of extension counter to full-fledged branch at Guru Nanak Girls Degree College, Sunder Nagar (Kaushal Puri), Kanpur, U.P. on 13.03.1999 Mark E.
23. The trial Court, after considering pre-summoning evidence, dismissed the criminal complaint under section 203 Cr.P.C.
THE IMPUGNED ORDER:
24. Relevant portion of the impugned order is reproduced as under:
"Perusal of pre-summoning evidence and complaint reveals that complainant has not levelled even a single allegation of criminal intimidation, fraud, criminal breach of trust, cheating, forgery for the purpose of cheating and forgery of valuable security using forged documents as genuine and defamation against the proposed accused persons in the entire pre summoning evidence. There are no allegations of any kind of inducement to the complainant by the proposed accused persons so as to made a prima facie case for summoning the proposed accused persons for the offence of cheating. Furthermore, dismissal / suspension of complainant is upheld uptill Apex Court.
Crl. Rev. No. 490/2017 Daya Singh vs. Punjab & Sind Bank & Ors. Page No. 9 of 19 Furthermore, alleged facts pertains to year 1999 and order of Hon'ble Supreme Court came in the year 2010 but present complaint was filed in the year 2011 i.e. after considerable delay for the reasons best known to the complainant. It is also pertinent to mention that complainant was working in the bank branch situated at Kanpur and FIR was also registered against him in Kanpur, U.P. and all the proceedings pertaining to fact in question took place in Kanpur or Lucknow or Gurgaon and Ld. Predecessor has also observed in order dated 30.03.2013 that as per the Enquire Officer nothing has happened in the jurisdiction of PS Prasad Nagar. No criminality can be inferred from the perusal of entire pre summoning evidence. Complainant has merely placed on record proceedings of court which cannot substantiate the allegations of cheating, forgery, criminal intimidation etc. No case is made out under any of the sections as claimed by the complainant on the basis of testimony of the complainant before the court.
In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances and discussion, it is apparent on record that no prima facie case is made out to summon the proposed accused persons.
Therefore, the Court does not find any merit in the present case for summoning of the accused persons to face ordeal of criminal trial for the offences alleged against them by the complainant as there is no sufficient material on record for the same. The summoning of the accused persons are accordingly declined and the complaint is hereby dismissed u/s 203 Cr.P.C."
GROUNDS OF REVISION:
25. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned order, the petitioner impugned the said order on the grounds, as under:
(a) The trial Court did not appreciate the material on record discloses commission of the said offences;
Crl. Rev. No. 490/2017 Daya Singh vs. Punjab & Sind Bank & Ors. Page No. 10 of 19
(b) The trial Court did not consider letter dated 29.06.2004 addressed to SHO, PS Nazirabad, Kanpur wherein the petitioner specifically alleged that the respondent No. 12 in collusion with other respondents hatched a conspiracy to involve him in a false case;
(c) The trial Court did not consider the reply dated 19.01.2000 wherein there are specific allegations against the respondents for falsely implicating him in the case. It was mentioned therein that D.K. Mahajan, Manager reached the office at Kanpur before closing of business hours whereas Zonal Manager had a talk with the petitioner;
(d) The trial Court did not consider that on 08.03.1999, the respondent No. 8 visited branch office and verified all the documents but on 09.03.1999, D.K. Mahajan, officer of same rank started investigation in office of the petitioner for security documents which were already verified just before one day;
(e) The trial Court did not consider communication No. 298 dated 11.03.1999 directing the petitioner to join service at Kanpur which was received by him at his residence in Gurgaon on 13.03.1999. However, the petitioner was suspended vide order dated 12.03.1999. The permission for lodging criminal case against the petitioner was granted vide letter dated 13.03.1999 and on the same day, criminal case was lodged with police on 13.03.1999;
(f) There was no urgency to lodge complaint with the police as letter No. 298 dated 11.03.1999 directing the petitioner to join service received by the petitioner in Gurgaon on 13.03.1999. The petitioner could have joined his service at Kanpur on 15.03.1999 as 13.03.1999 was a Saturday;
(g) The charge-sheet dated 30.10.2000 was served upon the petitioner, vide unsigned letter dated 10.01.2001;
(h) The facts and circumstances of the case disclose conspiracy against the petitioner; and
(i) There was sufficient material for taking cognizance of offences against the respondents.
Crl. Rev. No. 490/2017 Daya Singh vs. Punjab & Sind Bank & Ors. Page No. 11 of 19 APPEARANCE:
26. I have heard arguments of Mr. Anjani Kumar Singh, Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Sanjay Rawat, Advocate for all the respondents except the respondent No. 3 and perused written arguments filed by Ld. Counsel for the petitioner and case law filed by Ld. Counsel for the respondents except the respondent No. 3 and carefully examined trial Court record.
CONTENTIONS OF THE PETITIONER:
27. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner served the said bank for 25 years and he had unblemished service record. He contended that the petitioner was a victim of union politics. He contended that the petitioner was promoted as 'Manager' on 23.08.1997 and transferred to Kanpur on 04.11.1997. He contended that extension counter of Punjab and Sind Bank at Guru Nanak Girls Degree College, Sunder Nagar (Kaushal Puri), Kanpur, U.P. was upgraded to full-fledged branch because of hard work of the petitioner. He contended that the said up-gradation of the extension counter became eye-sore to his rivals who framed him in a case of misappropriation. He contended that there was no recovery of any amount from the petitioner. He contended that the respondent No. 8 had visited branch of the petitioner and verified all security documents on 08.03.1999. He contended that on 09.03.1999, Mr. D.K. Mahajan conducted investigation of the documents already verified on 08.03.1999.
Crl. Rev. No. 490/2017 Daya Singh vs. Punjab & Sind Bank & Ors. Page No. 12 of 19
28. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner contended that the branch of the petitioner was inspected on 25.07.1998, 18.09.1998 and 28.09.1998 and the said inspection reports did not state anything against the petitioner. He contended that the petitioner had voluntary left his office on 09.03.1999 with due intimation to Zonal Head. He contended that the petitioner was directed to join duty vide letter dated 11.03.1999. He contended that the petitioner received the said letter dated 11.03.1999 at his residence in Gurgaon on 13.03.1999 i.e. Saturday and in the meanwhile, the respondent No. 11 lodged a criminal complaint with PS Nazirabad, Kanpur City, Kanpur, U.P. and on the basis of that complaint, FIR No. 52/99 was registered against the petitioner. He contended that the respondent No. 8 suspended the petitioner vide order dated 12.03.1999. He contended that the manner in which the petitioner was framed in the said criminal case in the absence of the petitioner with due intimation give rise to strong inference of conspiracy against him. He contended that there was no urgency to lodge criminal complaint against the petitioner on 13.03.1999 as the petitioner was supposed to join duty on 15.03.1999. He contended that the petitioner was involved in a criminal case on false grounds on unverified facts and in breach of service regulations. He referred reply dated 29.06.2004 to PS Nazirabad, Kanpur City, Kanpur, U.P. to contend that the petitioner made specific allegations of conspiracy and false implication by the respondents.
Crl. Rev. No. 490/2017 Daya Singh vs. Punjab & Sind Bank & Ors. Page No. 13 of 19 CONTENTIONS OF THE RESPONDENTS EXCEPT THE RESPONDENT NO. 3:
29. Ld. Counsel for the respondents contended that there is no legal infirmity, irregularity or apparent error of law in the impugned order.
ANALYSIS:
30. As already noted above, the petitioner was dismissed from service after departmental enquiry vide order dated 06.06.2003. The said order of dismissal was upheld by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India vide judgment dated 28.07.2010. The respondents were officers of Punjab and Sind Bank. They had taken requisite action against the petitioner in discharge of their official duties. There is no material on record that any of the officers had any malice, enmity or ill-will against the petitioner. The petitioner instituted the complaint case just to wreak vengeance upon the respondents as they were involved in initiation of departmental enquiry, institution of civil suit and registration of criminal case against the petitioner. The petitioner instituted the present complaint within the jurisdiction of Central District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi just to harass the respondents.
The petitioner examined himself as CW-1. On examination of his testimony and documents filed on record, it is evident that there is no material that there was any conspiracy between the respondents to implicate him in any criminal case and to ensure his removal from service. The petitioner was either misadvised or he instituted the complaint with oblique motive.
Crl. Rev. No. 490/2017 Daya Singh vs. Punjab & Sind Bank & Ors. Page No. 14 of 19
31. 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 bring only 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."
32. In Jatinder Singh and Others vs. Ranjit Kaur, (2001) 2 SCC 570, Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held as under:
"10.....Section 203 of the Code empowers him to dismiss a complaint after holding such inquiry if he is of the opinion that "there is no sufficient ground for proceeding". In that event he has to record the reasons as to why he held that there is not sufficient ground for proceeding, though he need not write an elaborate order....."
Crl. Rev. No. 490/2017 Daya Singh vs. Punjab & Sind Bank & Ors. Page No. 15 of 19
33. In Shivjee Singh vs. Nagendra Tiwary and Others, (2010) 7 SCC 578, Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held as under:
"13. Section 203 empowers the Magistrate to dismiss the complaint if, after considering the statements made by the complainant and the witnesses on oath and the result of the inquiry or investigation, if any, made under Section 202(1), he is satisfied that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding. The exercise of this power is hedged with the condition that the Magistrate should record brief reasons for dismissing the complaint. Section 204, which talks of issue of process lays down that if the Magistrate taking cognizance of an offence is of the view that there is sufficient ground for proceeding then he may issue summons for attendance of the accused in a summons case. If it is a warrant case, then the Magistrate can issue warrant for causing attendance of the accused.
17.....Under Section 203, the Magistrate can dismiss the complaint if, after taking into consideration the statements of the complainant and his witnesses and the result of the inquiry / investigation, if any, done under Section 202, he is of the view that there does not exist sufficient ground for proceeding. On the other hand, Section 204 provides for issue of process if the Magistrate is satisfied that there is sufficient ground for doing so.
18. The expression "sufficient ground" used in Sections 203, 204 and 209 means the satisfaction that a prima facie case is made out against the person accused of committing an offence and not sufficient ground for the purpose of conviction....."
34. In Krishna Lal Chawla and Others vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another, (2021) 5 SCC 435, Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held as under:
"15. The sum of the above circumstances and precedents leads us to what we see as an inevitable conclusion.
Crl. Rev. No. 490/2017 Daya Singh vs. Punjab & Sind Bank & Ors. Page No. 16 of 19 That Respondent 2's institution of the fresh complaint case in 2018 under Section 200 CrPC was a concerted effort to mislead the Magistrate with the oblique motive of harassing the appellants with a frivolous and vexatious case against them. That the same was a counterblast to the charge-sheet dated 17-9-2017 filed against Respondent 2 and his wife in the case registered by the appellant. The history of ill will and malice between the parties leads further credence to Respondent 2's motivations for tying up the appellants in frivolous and harrowing criminal litigation, long years after the alleged incident. Respondent 2's conduct in filing a delayed complaint case, suppressing material facts, and utilising fresh proceedings to materially improve on his earlier version, in totality, amounts to gross abuse of the process of court.
21. All of this leads to one inescapable conclusion. That the trial Judge has a duty under the Constitution and the CrPC, to identify and dispose of frivolous litigation at an early stage by exercising, substantially and to the fullest extent, the powers conferred on him....."
35. The trial Court considered the complaint, statement on oath of the complainant and the documents and applied its judicial mind in reaching to the conclusion that there is no sufficient material for summoning of the respondents.
36. The complaint case was manifestly attended with mala fide and / or maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the respondents and with a view to spite them due to private and personal grudge.
37. The trial Court rightly declined to summon the respondents and dismissed the complaint case under Section 203 Cr.P.C.
Crl. Rev. No. 490/2017 Daya Singh vs. Punjab & Sind Bank & Ors. Page No. 17 of 19 CONCLUSION:
38. 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.
39. Accordingly, the criminal revision petition filed by the petitioner is dismissed.
40. Trial Court record alongwith a copy of judgment be sent to trial Court.
41. Revision file be consigned to record room.Digitally signed
SANJAY by SANJAY
SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2022.02.25
14:37:18 +0530
Announced in the open Court SANJAY SHARMA-II
on this 25th February, 2022 Addl. Sessions Judge-03 (Central)
Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi
Crl. Rev. No. 490/2017 Daya Singh vs. Punjab & Sind Bank & Ors. Page No. 18 of 19 Daya Singh vs. Punjab & Sind Bank & Ors.
CNR No.: DLCT010155032017 Crl. Revision No. 490/2017 25.02.2022 Present : Mr. Saroj Kumar Singh, Advocate with the petitioner.
Mr. Sanjay Rawat, Advocate for all the respondents except the respondent No. 3 (Video Conferencing).
Vide separate judgment, the criminal revision petition filed by the petitioner is dismissed. The revision file be consigned to record room. Digitally signed SANJAY by SANJAY SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2022.02.25 14:37:51 +0530 Sanjay SharmaII ASJ03, Central District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi NK 25.02.2022 Crl. Rev. No. 490/2017 Daya Singh vs. Punjab & Sind Bank & Ors. Page No. 19 of 19