Delhi District Court
Sh. Ram Kumar vs Sh. Suraj Kumar on 31 October, 2022
IN THE COURT OF SH. VIMAL KUMAR YADAV
PRINCIPAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE (NORTH)
ROHINI COURTS, DELHI
CNR No. DLNT01-003893-2022
Crl. Revision No. 115/2022
Sh. Ram Kumar
s/o late Sh. Daulat Ram Gulati
r/o 52, North Avenue Road
Punjabi Bagh, West Delhi
New Delhi-110026.
Factory address : 36 & 37
KH. No. 13/14 & 13/15
Gali No. 9, Near Havells
Samaypur Extensive Industrial Area
Samaypur Badli, Delhi-110042 .........Revisionist
Vs.
1. Sh. Suraj Kumar
Loan Officer
2. Sh. N.K. Chauhan
Recovery Officer
Who are posted at Rajender Nagar Branch
3. Sh. Jaideep, Manager
Posted at Rajender Nagar Branch
Official address of Respondents no. 1 to 3 :
Ground Floor, Prem Dohli Sadan, 11, Rajendra
Place, Delhi-110008
4. Sh. Rajeev Lal
Non-Executive Chairman
5. Sh. V. Vidyanathan
Founder and Chairmen Capital First Limited
MD and CEO of IDFC Bank
Address of respondents no. 4 & 5:
Naman Chambers, C-32, G. Block, Bandra Kurla Complex,
CR No. 115/2022 Page 1/9
Bandra (East), Mumbai-40051.
Registered office at : KRM Towers, 7th Floor, No. 1, Harrington
Road, Chetpet, Chennai-600031 and
4th Floor, 401-407, A-Wing, Tehnopolis Knowledge Park,
Marakali Caves Road, Andheri(E), Mumbai-400093.
.......Respondents
Date of institution : 10.05.2022
Arguments heard on : 17.10.2022
Date of pronouncement : 31.10.2022
ORDER
The revisional jurisdiction of this Court has been invoked by Sh. Ram Kumar whereby the order dated 15.03.2022 passed by the Court of Ms. Tapasya Agarwal, learned MM, North District, Rohini Courts, Delhi, in case titled as "Ram Kumar vs. Suraj Kumar & Ors." bearing Case No. 986/2020, has been assailed. The Revision petition stands disposed off hereby through this order.
Learned Counsel for the revisionist while assailing the impugned order has stated that the learned trial court has not taken into consideration the fact that the allegations levelled by the revisionist (applicant before the learned trial court) constitute not only the cognizable offence but the fact that the revisionist is not in possession of the entire evidence nor in a position to secure the evidence specially with regard to the telephonic call(s) which was made by the respondents while the revisionist was performing last rites of his unmarried sister at Haridwar.
In these circumstances when the officials of the CR No. 115/2022 Page 2/9 respondents had barged into the house of the respondents on more than one occasions in the past and threatened him and his family members with dire consequences, then there are sufficient reasons with the revisionist to seek registration of FIR. The visits were under the pretext of securing the repayment of the loan advanced to the revisionist by the respondent organization i.e. Capital First Limited. In addition to that, several other facts have been stated by the revisionist that he has paid a substantial amount of loan but the respondents are trying to extort as much as possible in the name of interest and penalty etc. With these submissions, it is sought that in view of the Judgments passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in "Lallan Chaudhary & Ors. vs. State of Bihar & Anr., VII (2006) SLT 408", "Ramesh Kumar vs. State of NCT of Delhi & Ors, 2006 III AD (SC) 28" and "Lalita Kumari vs. Govt. of U.P. & Ors.", the trial court has erred in not ordering the registration of FIR against the respondents u/s 415/416/417/418/419/420/468/471/120B/441/447/34 IPC. It is asserted finally that in view of the contents of the complaint/application filed by the revisionist u/s 156(3) Cr.PC, the cognizable offence of defamation, fraud and cheating etc. were committed and as the revisionist is not in a position to bring the entire evidence, therefore, investigation by the police is requested and as such, the trial court should have ordered the registration of FIR against the respondents.
The present revision petition has been contested by the respondents and at the outset, it is submitted that the CR No. 115/2022 Page 3/9 revisionist has filed the instant revision petition and for that matter the complaint before the learned trial court in order to create pressure on the respondents so he may have a favourable settlement with the respondents. It is submitted that the malafide of the revisionist can be inferred from one fact that he has involved the Non-Executive Chairman and the Chairman of Capital First Ltd., who are located at Mumbai, to assert that they defamed or cheated him or for that matter threatened or trespassed into the house of the revisionist. It is highly preposterous to believe that a person of the stature of MD or CEO of a company sitting at Mumbai would be coming to Delhi to realize a loan. Additionally, it is submitted that the facts pleaded by the revisionist before this Court and before the trial court are all incorrect and false. Learned trial court has correctly applied the legal provisions on the facts of the case and in the light of the Judgment in "Skipper Beverage Pvt. Ltd. vs. State, 2001 SCC Online Del 448" and the ATR filed by the police authorities, has rightly held that there was no need to order registration of FIR.
It is further asserted on behalf of the respondents that the complaint and the application u/s 156(3) Cr.PC are nothing but an after thought as the parties are in litigation since 2017 onwards with a legal notice and none of the earlier petitions filed by the revisionist so far has even a reference of what has been alleged in the complaint. The details have been given in tabulated form in para 5 of the reply filed by the respondents to emphasize that the present case is nothing but an after thought and a tactics to arm twist the respondents into submission. Had CR No. 115/2022 Page 4/9 there been any such circumstance, the revisionist would have rather should have brought it on record in any of the previous proceedings either before Debt Recovery Tribunal, the Magistrate, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge or before the Hon'ble High Court where parties have already locked horns. Then the revisionist, could have, at the most, some grievance against recovery officer of the respondents but he has arrayed five persons in the complaint without there being any justification. Therefore, it is submitted that in view of the ratio of the Judgment in "Ravindra P. Kumar vs. State & Ors., 2016(3) JCC 1806", no case is made out and the impugned order is required to be upheld in view of the fact that the same is in consonance with the facts and circumstances of the case and the legal position.
Additionally, the respondents have also placed reliance on the Judgment in "S.P. Chengalavaraya Naidu vs. Jagannath, AIR 1994 SC 853" to assert that a person who misrepresents the facts before the Court and indulges into all kind of dilatory and escapist tactics should not be allowed to take the judicial system for a ride. Who comes to the Court with unclean hands, does not deserve the indulgence of the Court.
The tabulated form of the events starting from 22.06.2016 to 15.03.2022 have been given by the respondents in para 10 of the reply to assert that the respondent company is only in the process of recovering its loan which the revisionist does not want to repay and that is why all kind of legal proceedings and other tactics are being employed. In the absence of any CR No. 115/2022 Page 5/9 evidence to the effect that the respondents either called him telephonically, visited his place or threatened him, the allegations remain false allegations and do not constitute any cognizable offence. The revisionist could have at least produced CCTV footage, some details of the matter reported some DD entry etc. with regard to the complaint made to the police if at all the respondents had visited or trespassed into his house or any such complaint was even made. Absence of all these rather any of these blunts the contentions of the revisionist and in the process substantiate the contention of revisionist that this is nothing but a ploy. It is further asserted that it is nearly impossible to believe that cash payments qua repayment of loan were made without any receipt etc. With these contentions, it is submitted on behalf of the respondents that the impugned order does not required any interference.
I have considered the submissions made by the rival sides and have also gone through the record of the case as well including the impugned order.
The revisionist has although stated in his submissions that the respondents barged into his house, committed trespassed and extended threats to take possession of the factory, manhandled and misbehaved but, could not show anything to even prima facie show it. Mere oral submission would not be enough.
CR No. 115/2022 Page 6/9The parties are litigating if not from 2017, then atleast from 2019. Atleast four legal proceedings were/are there between the parties, but in those four proceedings, as enumerated in para 5 of the reply in respect of the so-called threats, trespass and other acts alleged in the complaint, not even a whisper is there. The genesis of the dispute is in the loan and its repayment. There is no other relationship between the parties. The revisionist so much trepidated that he is seeking registration of FIR, then he should have mentioned/referred these things in any of the other proceedings. There is no cogent answer as to why it is not there.
Again, it is unbelievable that the revisionist had paid cash to the employees of the respondent as repayment of the loan, which he took. The revisionist is a businessman and it is not expected that he would not be knowing these facts that the receipts are required to be obtained in respect of any cash transaction or even otherwise when even a cheque is handed over. These facts make the revision petition and in-turn the complaint/application U/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. questionable. Nevertheless, the revisionist has the option available to him as can be seen from the copy of impugned order, which provides an opportunity to the revisionist to bring evidence, so that the court may appreciate the case and accordingly decide. The insistence of the revisionist to have a police case registered without satisfying any of the requisites for registration of an FIR U/s 156(3) Cr.P.C., has been examined by the Ld Trial Court and rightly declined the application. All the facts are within the reach of the revisionist and he can depose about the same. The only plea which may have some substance is the fact that he had CR No. 115/2022 Page 7/9 allegedly received threatening telephonic calls while he was performing last rites of his deceased unmarried sister at Haridwar, but there is no date mentioned nor any time is there nor any telephone number is mentioned from which he had received the call and for that matter the number on which he allegedly received the call. In any case, if he wants, he can summon the record from the service provider of the telephone connection. It has been mentioned in the revision that he is in possession of recording of certain telephonic conversation, so he can produce those which are under his control. In these circumstances, the impugned order cannot be faulted, therefore, does not require any interference.
So far as the judgments relied upon by Ld counsel for the revisionist are concerned, the legal position has been explained and confirmed, qua which there cannot be any and there is no quarrel. However, to bring the case within the purview of those judgments, the facts should be such which are capable to invoke the legal provisions as have been explained and re-affirmed in the judgments relied upon by Ld counsel for the revisionist.
It is a settled law that while exercising its power under Section 397 Cr.P.C., the revisional court ordinarily examines the questions of law that are raised for adjudication. However, while hearing revisions under Section 397 Cr.P.C., the Court does not work as an appellate court and will not re-appreciate the evidence, unless some glaring feature is pointed out which may show that injustice has been done. Ordinarily, it would be CR No. 115/2022 Page 8/9 inappropriate to re-appreciate the evidence and interfere with findings of facts and when the same have already been appreciated by the Magistrate as well as the Sessions Judge in appeal. Reference in this context can be made in State of Kerala Vs. Puttaman Illath Jathavedan Namboodri 1999 Crl.J. 1443.
There is no specific date of the events given as to when and at what time, the alleged threats were given and trespass was committed. In the absence of the same, the claim of the revisionist becomes a mere assertion and in any case, the allegations should constitute a cognizable offence. The revisionist cannot be permitted the enlarge the scope of the revision in the rejoinder (replication), as has been attempted by the revisionist. In any case, it is the complaint/application which is the basic material, if that is silent about the incidents and their dates, the revisionist cannot bring new facts before the revisional court to assail an order, which was passed in the absence of those details, which nobody else except the revisionist himself was supposed to provide and place before the court of Ld Magistrate.
In view of these facts and circumstances, the impugned order does not require any interference. As a result, the revision petition stands dismissed. Trial court record be sent back along with copy of this order. Revision file be consigned to the Record Room.
Announced in the open Court VIMAL by Digitally signed VIMAL on 31.10.2022 KUMAR YADAV KUMAR Date: YADAV 2022.11.02 16:09:12 +0530 (Vimal Kumar Yadav) Principal District & Sessions Judge (North) Rohini Courts, Delhi CR No. 115/2022 Page 9/9