Delhi District Court
Mohd. Haroon vs Kanwar Deep & Others on 16 November, 2012
Mohd. Haroon v. Kanwar Deep & others
IN THE COURT OF SH. PAWAN KUMAR JAIN
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-01, (CENTRAL)
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
Criminal Revision NO. 73/2012
ID No: 02401R0396552012
MOHD. HAROON
S/o Sh. Aizaz Ali
R/o E-2/1062, Gali No. 18,
Nehru Vihar, Mustafabad,
Delhi
...........Petitioner
Versus
KANWAR DEEP & OTHERS
...........Respondents
Date of Institution : 23.08.2011
Date of order : 16.11.2012
Present: Sh. Ram Pal Singh, Advocate, counsel for revisionist
Sh.R.K. Tanwar, Additonal Public Prosecutor for State
O R D E R:
1. This criminal revision has been filed against the impugned order dated July 6, 2012, passed by the Court of Sh.Neevan Gupta, learned Metropolitan Magistrate Central District-01, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi whereby learned Trial Court had dismissed the application moved under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.
2. Necessary facts in brief for disposal of the present criminal revision are that revisionist had filed a criminal complaint against the CR No. 73/2012 Page no. 1 of 4 Mohd. Haroon v. Kanwar Deep & others three officials of M/s Chola Mandlam Investment & Finance Co. Ltd and Mr. Ram Lingam, Notary Public, Tamil Nadu alleging that they had forged his signature on the loan agreement document. It was alleged that though revisionist had taken a loan of Rs.5.00 lac from the said company, yet he had not executed any loan agreement. It was alleged that company had forged his signature on the loan agreement. From the imugned order, it is revealed that revisionist had filed a petition before the District Consumer Forum as the financed vehicle was defective. Thereafter, some unknown persons lifted the vehicle under order of the Court. It was alleged that on the basis of alleged forged loan agreement, repondents No. 1 to 3 had succeeded in obtaining an ex-parte injuction order from the Court. Accordingly, revisionist filed a criminal complaint for the offence punishable under Sections 406/420/467/468/471/120B IPC along with an applicantion under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., which was dismissed by the impugned order.
3. Aggrieved by the said order, revisionist filed the present criminal revision. No notice was issued to the respondents, however, notice was given to the State.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the revisionist contended that learned Trial Court committed an error in dismissing the application as the respondents had forged his signature on the loan agreement. It was contended that police investigation is required as the document is required to be sent to the FSL. On being asked, learned counsel fairly conceded that revisionist had taken a loan of Rs. 5.00 lac from M/s Chola Mandlam Investment Co. Ltd. but swiftly added that revisionist had not executed any document at the time of taking loan. It was further contended that Company had taken blank signed cheques from the CR No. 73/2012 Page no. 2 of 4 Mohd. Haroon v. Kanwar Deep & others revisionist.
5. Per contra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor refuted the said contentions by arguing sagaciously that it is unbelievable that company would finance the vehicle without getting any loan agreement executed from the revisionist. It was further submitted that it is admitted case of the revisionist that he had committed default in repaying the loan amount, consequently, company had lifted the vehicle under the order of the Court.
6. I have heard rival submissions made by counsel for both the parties, perused the record carefully and gave my thoughtful consideration to their contentions.
7. It is admitted case of the revisionist that he had taken a loan of Rs.5.00 lac from the company to finance a vehicle. It is also admitted case of the revisionist that the company had lifted the said vehicle under the order of the Court. Revisionist took the plea that company had financed the vehicle to the tune of Rs.5.00 lac without asking the revisionist to execute any loan agreement. The said plea does not inspire any confindence because it is unbelievable that any company would finance a vehicle without asking the revisionist to execute the necessary loan agreement documents. On the contray, learned counsel submitted that at the time of lending the loan of Rs.5.00 lac, company had taken some blank signed cheques, thus, both the pleas are paradox to each other as on the one hand revisionist states that company was so careless that it had granted the loan without any documentation but on the other hand states that company was so clever that it had taken blank CR No. 73/2012 Page no. 3 of 4 Mohd. Haroon v. Kanwar Deep & others signed cheques. Once, prima-facie it appears that the version of revisionist is untrustworth or doubtful or vague, Court is justified not to exercise his discretion in favour of the revisionist. I have perused the impugned order and I am of the view that there is no infirmity, illegality or irregularity therein, thus, same does not require any interference from this Court.
8. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I hereby dismiss the present criminal revision.
9. Copy of order be sent to the learned Trial Court immediately.
10. TCR be sent back.
11. Criminal revision file be consigned to record room.
Announced in the open Court On this 16th day of November 2012 [PAWAN KUMAR JAIN] Additional Sessions Judge-01, Central/THC, DELHI CR No. 73/2012 Page no. 4 of 4