Delhi District Court
Cr No.03/16 Cc No. 72/1/15 vs Mr. Dilip Singh on 5 May, 2016
1
IN THE COURT OF SH. SANJEEV AGGARWAL SPECIAL JUDGE
CBI03 (PC ACT) DELHI
CR No.03/16 CC No. 72/1/15
Mr. Satish Chandra Ojha, PS Maurice Nagar
Accountant & Assistant U/s 156(3) Cr.PC
Hans Raj College,
Malka Ganj, Delhi .....Petitioner
Versus
1. Mr. Dilip Singh,
Employee Hans Raj College,
Malka Ganj, Delhi
2. Mr. Tika Ram,
Employee Hans Raj College,
Malka Ganj, Delhi
3. The State Govt. of NCT of Delhi .... Respondents
05.05.2016
O R D E R
1. Vide this order I shall dispose off present revision petition filed by the petitioner against the impugned order dated 09.03.16 passed by Ld. MM, whereby application of the respondents U/s 156(3) Cr.PC was allowed and an FIR was directed to be registered at PS Maurice Nagar.
2. Brief facts which can be taken out from the order of Ld. Trial CR No. 03/16 Satish Chandra Ojha Vs. Dilip Singh & Ors 2 court dated 09.03.2016 are reproduced as under: Briefly stated that the complainants are the members of HRC thrift and Credit society, Hans Raj College, Delhi University which is registered under Delhi Cooperative Society Act. The society takes compulsory deposit of Rs. 1125/ from each of its member and gives loan up to the limit of Rs. 2,25,000/. Complainant no. 1 Sh. Dilip Kumar Singh is the President and complainant no. 2 Sh.
Tikka Ram is the Secretary of said society. Proposed accused no. 1 Satish Chand Ojha is accountant/clerk and proposed accused no. 2 Sh. Ajeet Kumar is Treasure of said society. After joining the post, complainant no. 1 observed several financial irregularities whereupon proposed accused no. 1 was called to produce all the accounts, registers, receipts and other relevant documents, however, he provided only three ledger accounts. Upon scrutiny CR No. 03/16 Satish Chandra Ojha Vs. Dilip Singh & Ors 3 of aforesaid record, it was revealed that proposed accused no. 1 showed more deductions of loan in the society's account but practically there was much less deduction. The total figure of cheating by the manipulation of accounts is about Rs. 15 lakh. Another fraud which was revealed was in the case of one Smt. Veena Mathur wherein proposed accused no. 1 took a loan of Rs. 1.5 lakh in the year 201011 in the name of Smt. Veena Mathur but proposed accused no. 1 destroyed her application form and deposited the said amount in his own account. It is also alleged that thereafter general body meeting was called to take action against the proposed accused persons, however, proposed accused no. 1 got the settlement done in the absence of complainant no. 1 and without any authorization to anybody by complainant no. 1. Upon the complaint CR No. 03/16 Satish Chandra Ojha Vs. Dilip Singh & Ors 4 of complainant, proposed accused no. 1 admitted his offence on 16.09.2014 and stated that he had committed cheating and fraud in the society. On 17.09.2014, proposed accused no. 1 gave his resignation letter to escape from his liability but the same was not accepted.
Similarly, proposed accused no. 2 requested for long leave but the same was also declined. It is also alleged that ledger account and list of loan does not tally with each other.
3. Vide detailed order dated 09.03.2016 application of the respondents U/s 156(3) Cr.P.C was allowed and the SHO PS Maurice Nagar was directed to register an FIR on the allegations made in the complaint.
4. It is the said order petitioner has assailed by way of present revision petition on the following main grounds including that the said order has been passed mechanically without application of mind and without considering the fact that Managing Committee of the society had already written to the Principal that they do not CR No. 03/16 Satish Chandra Ojha Vs. Dilip Singh & Ors 5 want any action against the petitioner and the present proceedings are abuse of process of law. The Ld MM had also ignored the report of the PS Maurice Nagar, which had completely exonerated the petitioner after investigation. It is stated that there is no financial irregularity as alleged. Regarding the allegations of one Mrs. Veena Mathur, whereby it is alleged that the relevant documents pertaining to her have been destroyed by the petitioner. It is stated that the said documents were investigated by the police officers of PS Maurice Nagar, but nothing was found against the petitioner. It is stated even otherwise the complaint has no substance and order of Ld. MM dated 09.03.2016 is liable to be set aside.
5. I have heard Ld. Counsel for the petitioner Sh. Dushyant K.Mahant, Ld. Counsel for respondents no. 1 & 2 Ms. Deepika and Ld. Addl. PP for State(respondent no. 3) Sh. Himanshu Garg and perused the record.
6. From the trial court record including the complaint filed before Ld. MM on the basis of which the directions have been given for registration of FIR 156(3) Cr.PC, it is revealed that petitioner himself vide his extra judicial confession/admission recorded on 16.09.2014 addressed to the President of Hansraj College, Thrift CR No. 03/16 Satish Chandra Ojha Vs. Dilip Singh & Ors 6 & Credit Society had admitted his guilt that he had committed the falsification of accounts as well as financial irregularities, while working as a clerk in Hansraj College Thrift & Credit Society. The said extra judicial confession/admission had been made by him voluntarily in the presence of other members of the Managing Committee. There is also a letter written by one Smt. Veena Mathur to the Principal Hansraj College stating that she was the member of said Thrift & Credit Society having retired from the said college in the year 2008 in which she had deposited around 5 lacs rupees and the petitioner had fraudulently transferred Rs. 1.5 lacs into his account without any intimation to her. It is also pointed out in the complaint that there are falsification of records/accounts of Credit & Thrift Society, as per Annexure A filed alongwith the complaint, as for example sum of Rs. 52965/ is shown to have been deducted in the official documents, but in the society's ledger it is only 9159/ for the year 201213 and this there is a cheating of around 50,000/ and similarly it is alleged there are fraud/falsification of accounts for the year 201011, 201112, 201213 and the total amount of cheating was around Rs. 15 lacs.
7. Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment DLT 217, CR No. 03/16 Satish Chandra Ojha Vs. Dilip Singh & Ors 7 2001(59) DRJ 129 titled as M/s Skipper Beverages Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State. The relevant para of the said judgment is reproduced as under:
7. It is true that Section 156(3) of the Code empowers a Magistrate to direct the police to register a case and initiate investigations but this power has to be exercised judiciously on proper grounds and not in a mechanical manner. In those cases where the allegations are not very serious and the complainant himself is in possession of evidence to prove his allegations there should be no need to pass orders under Section 156(3) of the Code. The discretion ought to be exercises after proper application of mind and only in those cases where the Magistrate is of the view that the nature of the allegations is such that the complainant himself may not be in a position to collect and produce evidence before the Court and interests of justice demand that the police should step in to held the complainant. The police assistance can be taken by a Magistrate even Under Section 202(1) of the Code after taking cognizance and proceeding with the complaint under Chapter XV of the Code as held by Apex Court in 2001(1) Supreme Page 129 titled as "Suresh Chand Jain Vs State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors"CR No. 03/16
Satish Chandra Ojha Vs. Dilip Singh & Ors 8
8. The proposition of law laid down in the said judgment is not in dispute, rather the said judgment goes against the petitioner. The crux of the said judgment is that where the entire evidence is in possession of the complainant to prove then there is no need to resort of the provision U/s 156(3) Cr.PC, however where field investigation is required to be conducted that is to say where evidence is to be collected by the police officials or where complainant himself is not in a position to collect evidence, and the police assistance is required, then the Magistrate may resort to Section 156(3) Cr.P.C by directing registration of FIR.
9. In the facts and circumstances pointed out above, in view of the clear cut extra judicial confession/admissions of the petitioner and the fact that he has himself admitted committing the falsification of accounts and misappropriation of the funds of the Credit & Thrift Society, it is also alleged in the complaint that there is falsification of records of the society for various years. In these circumstances, am of the considered opinion that field investigation is required to be conducted by the police, as the said evidence cannot be collected by the complainant for which even custodial interrogation of the petitioner would be required to find out the true scope of financial bungling/ irregularities CR No. 03/16 Satish Chandra Ojha Vs. Dilip Singh & Ors 9 committed by him in the said Credit & Thrift Society, while working as a clerk for a long time. Accordingly the order under challenge does not suffer from any infirmity or illegality. The allegations made in the complaint discloses the commission of various cognizable offences which are serious in nature, which would require field investigation as well as custodial interrogation, which can only be done by the police, same cannot be done by the complainant himself, as the police is equipped to do so, by carrying out scientific investigation(s). Consequently, there is no merit in the present revision petition. Same is dismissed. Interim Order stands vacated.
10. File be consigned to Record Room.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN (Sanjeev Aggarwal)
COURT ON 05.05.2016 Special Judge,
CBI03 (PC Act)
Delhi/05.05.2016
CR No. 03/16
Satish Chandra Ojha Vs. Dilip Singh & Ors