Delhi District Court
Criminal Case/161/1997 on 12 March, 2014
IN THE COURT OF MS. SAUMYA CHAUHAN,
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, WEST, TIS HAZARI COURT
State v. Anil Bhatia
FIR No.161/1997
PS Paschim Vihar
U/s 46/420 IPC
JUDGMENT
C C No. : 894/2/10
Date of Institution : 27.05.1997
Date of Commission of Offence : 03.12.1996
Name of the complainant : Smt. P. Laxmi
W/0 Late Sh. D. W. Padam Nathan
r/o GHI/109 Paschim Vihar, Delhi
Name & address of the accused : Anil Bhatia
s/o Chetan Bhatia
r/o H. No. 17, South Patel Nagar,
New Delhi
Offence complained of : U/s 406/420 IPC
Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty
Final Order : Acquitted
Date of reserve for judgment : 12.03.2014
Date of announcing of judgment : 12.03.2014
State v. Anil Bhatia U/s 406/420 IPC
FIR No. 161/97, PS Paschim Vihar
BRIEF STATEMENT OF THE REASONS FOR THE DECISION
1. Vide this judgment this court shall dispose of the present case u/s 406/420 IPC.
2. The story of the prosecution is that on or about 03.12.1996, the accused Anil Bhatia was entrusted with an amount of Rs. 50,000/ by Smt. P. Laxmi w/o D. W. Padmanthan r/o GH1/109, Paschim Vihar, Delhi and he had received the said amount as earnest money purportedly for the sale of flat no. A1/59A, Janta Flat, Paschim Vihar. However, he had committed criminal breach of trust in respect of the said money as he did not honour the commitment to sell the above said alleged flat to Smt. P. Laxmi. The said accused had cheated Smt. P. Laxmi by dishonestly inducing her to deliver an amount of Rs.50,000/ as earnest money for the sale of above mentioned flat but he did not perform his part of committment and thus the accused is alleged to have committed an offence under Section 406/420 IPC. After completing the formalities, investigation was carried out.
State v. Anil Bhatia U/s 406/420 IPC FIR No. 161/97, PS Paschim Vihar
3. Charge sheet was filed against the accused in the court. Documents were supplied to the accused and thereafter charge under Section 406/420 IPC was framed against him vide order dated 29.02.2000 to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. In order to prove the charge against the accused, the prosecution examined three witnesses namely (1) ASI Hawa Singh (2) Deepa Verma (3) Sanjeev Dhingra
5. PW1 ASI Hawa Singh proved the FIR as Ex. PW1/A and endorsement on rukka as Ex. PW1/B.
6. PW2 Smt. Deepa Verma, Sr. Scientific Officer deposed that the documents vide memo/letter no. 227/SHO/Paschim Vihar dated 21/02/04 were received in the office in connection with case FIR No. 161/97. These documents were marked to her for examination. She deposed that the questioned documents which were red enclosed signatures were marked Q1 and Q2 and the red enclosed specimens were from S1 to S3. She deposed that as per her State v. Anil Bhatia U/s 406/420 IPC FIR No. 161/97, PS Paschim Vihar conclusion the person who wrote the red enclosed signatures similarly stamped and marked S1 to S3 also wrote the red enclosed signatures similarly stamped and marked Q1 and Q2. Her detailed report is Ex. PW2/A. The questioned documents which were marked Q1 and Q2 isEx.PW2/B. During cross examination, she deposed that she could tell without seeing the records when the documents were received in the office. She could not recall without seeing the record and report whether the signatures were received in sealed condition or not. She could not tell how many signatures were received but whatever has been marked to her by IO are marked S1 to S3.
7. PW3 Sanjeev Dhingra deposed that in the year 1996, he was working as a property dealer and Anil Bhatia has sold his house no. A1/59 to Smt. Pushpa R/o GH1/109 and received Rs.50,000/ as Bayana, copy of the same is mark X. He deposed that before completion of the sale deed, the accused has already sold the aforesaid property to someone else. He again State v. Anil Bhatia U/s 406/420 IPC FIR No. 161/97, PS Paschim Vihar deposed that the said person might be Sh. Kulbhushan for which a case was registered against the accused Anil Bhatia in PS Patel Nagar. He further deposed that later on he came to know that the matter was settled between them. This witness was cross examined by the Ld. APP for State after taking permission from the court. During cross examination, he admitted the suggestion that Rs.50,000/ were received by the accused on 30.11.1996 from P. Laxmi in his presence. He further admitted the suggestion that the accused came in his office at A1/63, Paschim Vihar and told him that he wanted to sale his property situated at A1/59A, Paschim Vihar. He admitted that thereafter, he arranged a meeting with Anil Bhatia and Smt. P. Laxmi and deal was finalised. He did not remember whether on 05.01.1997 Smt. P. Laxmi went to the house of the accused and accused asked for payment of Rs.90,000/. He admitted that on 05.02.1997, when he alongwith Smt. P. Laxmi went to the house of the accused for preparation of sale agreement, accused refused to make the sale agreement and also refused to returned State v. Anil Bhatia U/s 406/420 IPC FIR No. 161/97, PS Paschim Vihar back the Bayana amount and they came to knew that accused persons has already sold the aforesaid property to Kulbhushan. He admitted the suggestion that the accused has intentionally cheated Smt. P. Laxmi. The witness was not cross examined despite opportunity.
8. The complainant P. Laxmi has already expired and the other eye witness Kumar Manan has remained unserved even through DCP concerned. In the absence of testimony of complainant and the remaining eye witnesses, the guilt of the accused cannot be proved, hence PE was closed. Since nothing incriminating has come on record against the accused, as such, recording of statement of accused is also dispensed with.
9. I have heard the brief submissions addressed by the Ld APP for state and the accused himself and carefully perused the documents on record.
10. Section 406 IPC prescribes punishment for criminal breach of trust and the same is defined under Section 405 IPC which is reproduced verbatim here: Whoever being in any manner entrusted with property, or with any State v. Anil Bhatia U/s 406/420 IPC FIR No. 161/97, PS Paschim Vihar dominion over property, dishonestly misappropriates or converts to his own use that property, or dishonestly uses or disposes of that property in violation of any direction of law prescribing the mode in which such trust is to be discharged, or of any legal contract, express or implied, which he has made touching the discharge of such trust, or wilfully suffers any other person so to do, commits "criminal breach of trust".
11. Section 415 of IPC defines cheating as under : "Whoever, by deceiving any person, fraudulently or dishonestly induces the person so deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to consent that any person shall retain any property, or intentionally induces the person so deceived to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if her were not so deceived, and which act or omission causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to that person in body, mind, reputation or property, is said to Cheat".
12. Thus the main ingredients to be proved to establish cheating are: State v. Anil Bhatia U/s 406/420 IPC FIR No. 161/97, PS Paschim Vihar
1. Fraudulent and dishonest intention to deceive.
2. Inducement to the complainant to deliver any property or consent to deliver any property or to do or omit to do something which he would not otherwise do.
3. Such act/omission causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to the complainant in body/mind/reputation or property.
13. It is a cardinal priniciple of law that the prosecution has to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt. Even an iota of doubt in the prosecution story would entitle the accused for acquittal.
14. In the case at hand, the complainant P. Laxmi who was cheated by the accused has already expired and her name has been dropped from the list of witnesses. One eye witness Sanjeev Dhingra has turned hostile and another eye witness Kumar Manan has remained unserved even through DCP concerned. In absence of the testimony of the complainant and the eye witnesses, the prosecution has failed to prove that the cheating was committed against the complainant by the accused. The prosecution has State v. Anil Bhatia U/s 406/420 IPC FIR No. 161/97, PS Paschim Vihar failed to prove that the complainant had handed over Rs.50,000/ to the accused as earnest money.
15. In view of the above discussion, the charge against the accused has not been proved. Accordingly, the guilt of the accused has not been proved and thus he is entitled to be acquitted. Accordingly, accused Anil Bhatia is acquitted under Section 406/420 IPC.
16. As per section 437A Cr.P.C accused is admitted to bail on his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.10,000/ with one surety of like amount. Time sought to furnish bail bond. Granted.
ANNOUNCED ON 12.03.2014 (SAUMYA CHAUHAN) MM07(West)/ Tis Hazari Court 12.03.2014 Certified that this judgment contains 9 pages and each page bears my signatures.
(SAUMYA CHAUHAN)
MM07(West)/ Tis Hazari Court /12.03.2014
State v. Anil Bhatia U/s 406/420 IPC
FIR No. 161/97, PS Paschim Vihar