Delhi District Court
Sh. Sandeep Aggarwal vs Sh. Mohan Lal Goyal on 26 August, 2015
Criminal Revision No. 03/15 D.O.D.: 26.08.2015
IN THE COURT OF SHRI VIDYA PRAKASH: ADDL. SESSIONS
JUDGE04 (NORTH): ROHINI COURTS: DELHI
Criminal Revision No. 03/15
Unique Case ID: 02404R0008442015
Sh. Sandeep Aggarwal
S/o Sh. Bal Kishan Aggarwal
R/o 70, Tagore Park Model TownI,
Delhi110009. ...Revisionist
Versus
1. Sh. Mohan Lal Goyal
S/o Sh. Sher Singh Goyal
R/o 33/24, Rajpur Road, Delhi110054.
Also at:
C/o Registrar of Cooperative Societies
Parliament Street, New Delhi.
2. Smt. Neena Devi
W/o Mohal Lal Goyal
R/o 33/24, Rajpur Road,
Delhi110054. ...Respondents
Date of Institution : 09.01.2015
Date on which Order was reserved: 14.08.2015
Date on which Order pronounced : 26.08.2015
ORDER
1. The present revision petition is directed against the order dt. 24.11.2014 (herein after referred to as the impugned order) passed by Ld MM Sandeep Aggarwal Vs. Priyanka Aggarwal & Ors. Page 1 of 9 Criminal Revision No. 03/15 D.O.D.: 26.08.2015 Rohini Courts, Delhi in complaint case bearing CC no. 871/14 titled as "Sandeep Aggarwal Vs. Priyanka Aggarwal", whereby Ld trial Court has discharged both the respondents herein.
2. Brief facts relevant and necessary for deciding the present revision petition are that revisionist had filed the aforementioned complaint case against respondents herein as also against two more persons namely Priyanka Aggarwal and Sanjay Gupta, alleging therein that both the respondents and said two persons had committed offences punishable U/s 415/420/506/120B/34 IPC. After presummoning evidence was led by revisionist, both the respondents herein alone were summoned for offence punishable U/s 417/34 IPC vide order dt. 10.10.2011 passed by Court below. The respondent no. 2 herein preferred Criminal Revision Petition No. 10/13 against said order dated 10.10.2011 challenging the summoning order passed by trial Court. However, said revision petition came to be dismissed vide order dt. 12.02.2013 passed by Sh. Yashwant Kumar, the then Ld ASJ:03 (N/W), Rohini Court, Delhi.
3. Both the respondents are shown to have challenged the order dt. 12.2.13 passed by Ld. ASJ by way of two separate petitions bearing Criminal M.C Nos. 1356/13 and 1357/13 before Hon'ble High Court of Delhil. However, both the said petitions were dismissed as withdrawn vide order dt. 06.05.2014 passed by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi. Thereafter, Ld MM has passed the impugned order thereby discharging both the respondents herein while hearing arguments on the point of framing of notice in terms of Section 251 Cr.PC.
Sandeep Aggarwal Vs. Priyanka Aggarwal & Ors. Page 2 of 9
Criminal Revision No. 03/15 D.O.D.: 26.08.2015
4. In the impugned order, Ld trial Court has observed that there was nothing to show that daughter of both the respondents, has having problem of chronic schizophrenia before her marriage with the complainant on 10.12.2005. He further observed that necessary ingredients of the offence of cheating as defined in Section 417 IPC were not satisfied. Ultimately, Ld MM while placing reliance upon the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of "Bhushan Kumar Vs. State (NCT of Delhi)" reported at (2012) SCC 424, formed an opinion that no case was made out against the respondents and consequently, discharged them in the said case.
5. The impugned order has been assailed by petitioner/complainant mainly on the grounds that the impugned order is against the law and Ld. Trial Court failed to appreciate the facts of the case in correct perspective by not considering the evidence led by him during pre summoning evidence and the documents available on record. He has also challenged the impugned order on the ground that trial Court did not consider the medical prescription issued by AIIMS, wherein it is specifically mentioned that daughter of respondents is suffering from schizophrenia.
6. The present revision petition has been contested tooth and nail by respondents who have also filed written reply before the Court. In their written reply, the respondents have disputed the grounds of challenge raised by revisionist. They have supported the impugned order by claiming that Ld. trial Court has rightly discharged them in the aforesaid complaint case as there was no material filed by revisionist for offence of cheating alleged against them.
Sandeep Aggarwal Vs. Priyanka Aggarwal & Ors. Page 3 of 9
Criminal Revision No. 03/15 D.O.D.: 26.08.2015
7. I have already heard Ld counsel Sh. Pankaj Kumar Adv on behalf of revisionist and Ld counsel Sh. R.K Singh Adv on behalf of respondents. I have also gone through the material available on record including the written arguments filed on behalf of respondents as well as the authorities cited at the bar.
8. Ld. counsel of revisionist argued on the lines of grounds mentioned in the revision petition on the basis of which revisionist has challenged the impugned order. He vehemently argued that Ld trial Court failed to appreciate the medical prescriptions Ex. CW1/1 to Ex. CW1/3 proved during pre summoning evidence as said medical documents would show that daughter of respondents is suffering from schizophrenia and the medicines prescribed therein are necessarily for treatment of said disease. In this regard, he also placed reliance upon the meaning of expression "schizophrenia" as understood in Medical Jurisprudence, in order to bring home his point that as per medical jurisprudence, disease of schizophrenia develops at the time of puberty or adolescence and same is caused by multiplicity of factors. He submitted that schizophrenia usually occurs before the age of 20 years and thus, the view taken by Ld. MM that there was no sufficient material to show that daughter of respondents was having problem of schizophrenia before her marriage, is erroneous and factually incorrect. He also placed reliance upon the judgments reported at 1987 (2) Recent Criminal Reports 611 (Delhi) and 2000 Cr.LJ 3487 (SC), in support of his submission that concealment of fact at the time of marriage that spouse was suffering from mental Sandeep Aggarwal Vs. Priyanka Aggarwal & Ors. Page 4 of 9 Criminal Revision No. 03/15 D.O.D.: 26.08.2015 disorder,amounts to cheating. He also relied upon judgment reported at (2012) 5 SCC, 424 in support of his submission that it was duty of Ld MM to go through the allegations made in the complaint and to consider the evidence available on record before arriving at the conclusion as to whether prima facie case was made out for framing of notice or not. In this regard, he also placed reliance upon judgment of our own High Court in the matter reported at 2015 Cr.LJ 215 (Delhi). On the basis of these submissions, he urged that the impugned order is liable to be set aside.
9. Per contra, Ld. counsel of respondents vehemently argued that there is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. It was argued on their behalf that no cogent material whatsoever was placed on record by revisionist in order to show that offence of cheating was made out against them. They further argued that revisionist filed the complaint case for the offence of cheating out of personal vengeance against them and thus, trial Court has rightly discharged them for the said offence. They also placed heavy reliance upon the unreported decisions in the matter of "Cogent Silver Fiber Pvt. Ltd Vs. State" decided on 17.04.2007 and in the matter of "M.P. Singh Sawhney Vs. State & Ors." decided on 30.05.2013 by our own High Court.
10. In order to appreciate the rival submissions made on behalf of both the sides in the light of impugned order, it is relevant to note that revisionist alleged in the complaint case filed before trial Court that daughter of respondents herein, was suffering from chronic schizophrenia prior to her Sandeep Aggarwal Vs. Priyanka Aggarwal & Ors. Page 5 of 9 Criminal Revision No. 03/15 D.O.D.: 26.08.2015 marriage with him on 10.12.2005 and the said fact was deliberately concealed by said respondents at the time of marriage. He further alleged that said fact was revealed to him only after the marriage, when daughter of respondents was got treated at Hindu Rao Hospital and also in other hospitals for approximately 32 times during subsistence of matrimonial relationship between them. The revisionist had also placed on record medical treatment records in the form of OPD Card dated 03.02.2006 (Ex.CW1/1) issued by IBHAS, OPD Card dated 07.02.2006 (Ex.CW1/2) issued by Hindu Rao Hospital and another OPD Card dated 07.02.2006 issued by AIIMS. The revisionist had also examined himself as CW1 during pre summoning evidence, wherein he deposed on the lines of allegations made in the complaint case filed before the Court below.
11. The perusal of testimony of revisionist/complainant examined as CW1 during pre summoning evidence would show that he categorically deposed that daughter of respondents was suffering from chronic schizophrenia even prior to her marriage with him and the said fact was deliberately concealed from him. He also deposed that his meeting with her fiancee i.e. daughter of respondents used to be avoided on account of her mental condition. Not only this, he also deposed that after marriage, the daughter of respondents started shouting in the house on the very first night and she also created scene at the time of phera ceremony. She had also locked herself inside the room of hotel, when they had gone to Goa for honeymoon. Thereafter, the daughter of respondents was got medically examined and it was revealed that she was suffering from schizophrenia. Sandeep Aggarwal Vs. Priyanka Aggarwal & Ors. Page 6 of 9
Criminal Revision No. 03/15 D.O.D.: 26.08.2015
12. The opinion formed by Ld trial Court that there was no material to show that daughter of respondents was suffering from chronic schizophrenia before her marriage, is prima facie not acceptable in the light of fact that the factum regarding mental disorder of their daughter, would have been within their special knowledge and it is only concealment of said material fact which is being alleged by the revisionist/complainant. Same precisely forms the main basis on which the revisionist prosecuted them for offence of cheating punishable U/s 417 IPC.
13. The revisionist/complainant ought to have been given an opportunity to prove the allegations levelled by him in the complaint case, by leading evidence and by producing his witnesses for proving the medical documents filed on record. At the stage of notice, it was not proper for Ld MM to discharge the respondents for the said offence without actually going through the material available before him in the form of testimony of revisionist examined as CW1 and the medical treatment records of daughter of respondents brought on record and law of the land on the point in issue.
14. The opinion formed by Ld. trial Court that there was no material available on record showing that daughter of respondents was suffering from chronic schizophrenia before her marriage with the revisionist or that necessary ingredients of offence of cheating punishable U/s 417 IPC was not made out against respondents, are not sustainable in the eyes of law in the light of Medical Jurisprudence defining the expression 'Schizophrenia' and the term 'adolescence'. In this regard, reliance placed by revisionist on the Sandeep Aggarwal Vs. Priyanka Aggarwal & Ors. Page 7 of 9 Criminal Revision No. 03/15 D.O.D.: 26.08.2015 judgments mentioned herein above, is also relevant. Our own High Court has held in the judgment reported at 1987 (2) Recent Criminal Reports 611 (Delhi) that in case where there was concealment of fact that boy was suffering from mental disorder before marriage, case of cheating was made out against father of the boy and therefore, Hon'ble High Court refused to quash the proceedings in exercise of power conferred U/s 482 Cr.PC. In the authority reported at 2000 Cr.LJ 3487 (SC), Hon'ble Apex Court has held that offence of cheating as defined in Section 415 IPC need not relate to property and even when accused palmed off his sister as belonging to higher caste with object of getting her married to petitioner belonging to higher caste, offence of cheating was held to be made out in that case.
15. The reliance placed by Ld. trial Court on the celebrated judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court Bhushan Kumar's case mentioned supra, is found to be misplaced as in the said judgment, it has been categorically laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court that at the stage of framing of notice U/s 251 Cr.PC, Magistrate is bound to consider the entire material including the evidence and documents available on record and to pass speaking order while forming satisfaction that a prima facie case is made out against the accused or not. The said judgment has been followed by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the recent decision reported at 2015 Cr.LJ 215.
16. Both the authorities relied by respondents as mentioned above, are entirely distinguishable from the facts and circumstances of the present case. In both the said authorities, complainants had instituted criminal Sandeep Aggarwal Vs. Priyanka Aggarwal & Ors. Page 8 of 9 Criminal Revision No. 03/15 D.O.D.: 26.08.2015 proceeding but the facts of the said cases suggested that disputes were mainly of civil nature and the complainants had tried to convert civil dispute into criminal case. However, the facts of the present case are entirely distinguishable from the facts of both the authorities relied on behalf of respondents herein.
17. In the light of aforesaid reasons, I am of the considered opinion that there was sufficient material available on record, which raises grave suspicion against both the respondents for commission of offence punishable U/s 417/34 IPC. Resultantly, the impugned order dated 24.11.2014 is hereby set aside. Ld trial Court is directed to frame the notice in terms of Section 251 Cr.PC upon both the respondents for the offence punishable U/s 417/34 IPC in accordance with law. Both the sides are directed to appear before trial Court/Successor Court on 01.09.2015. TCR be sent back alongwith copy of this order. File of revision petition be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in open Court today
on 26.08.2015 (Vidya Prakash)
Additional Sessions Judge04 (North)
Rohini Courts, Delhi
Sandeep Aggarwal Vs. Priyanka Aggarwal & Ors. Page 9 of 9