Delhi District Court
State vs Rajender Shokeen And Anr on 24 August, 2024
IN THE COURT OF MS. SAMIKSHA GUPTA
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate
South West District; Dwarka Courts: New Delhi
Date of Institution : 25.03.2017
Date of Reserving Judgment : 23.08.2024
Date of Judgment : 24.08.2024
In the matter of :
State Vs. Rajender Shokeen & Anr.
FIR No.38/2014
PS : Sector-23 Dwarka
U/s: 420/506/34 IPC &
Section 4 Prize Chits & Money
Circulation Scheme (Banning) Act, 1978
1. Regn. No. of Case : 2319/2017
2. CNR No. of Case : DLSW02-006879-2017
3. Name of Complainant : Sh. Raju,
S/o Ram Lal
R/o A-6, Kiran Garden,
Nawada, Delhi.
4. Name of accused persons : 1. Rajender Shokeen
S/o Sh. Manphool
2. Poonam Shokeen
W/o Sh. Rajender Shokeen
Both R/o VPO Dichaon Kalan
Najafgarh, Delhi.
5. Offence charged under : 420/506/34 IPC &
State Vs. Rajender Shokeen & Anr.
FIR No.38/2014; PS Sector 23 Dwarka Page No.1 of 25
Sections Section 4 Prize Chits & Money
Circulation Scheme (Banning)
Act, 1978
6. Plea of accused persons : Not guilty.
7. Final Order : Acquitted
State represented by : Sh. Rohit Grewal, Ld. APP for State.
Accused represented by : Sh. Manmohan Yadav, Advocate.
JUDGMENT
1. It is the case of prosecution that accused persons were running a chit fund scheme. They induced complainant Raju to enroll as a member of chit fund on the basis of false assurances of high returns. During the period from June 2012 to March 2013, accused persons dishonestly induced complainant in pursuance of chit fund scheme to pay Rs.3,31,875/-, Rs.2,90,000/- and Rs.41,200/- and thereby cheated him of the above said amount.
During the said period accused persons also induced other people to enroll as members of chit fund and received money in pursuance of the scheme in contravention of Prize Chits and Money Circulation Scheme (Banning) Act, 1978 ("PCMC Act" hereinafter).
Further, accused persons intimidated the complainant by threatening him. Thus, prosecution has set up a State Vs. Rajender Shokeen & Anr.
FIR No.38/2014; PS Sector 23 Dwarka Page No.2 of 25 case under Section 420/506/34 IPC and under Section 4 of PCMC Act against both accused.
2. On the basis of investigation carried out by police, charge sheet was filed in Court and copy of the same was supplied to both accused persons.
3. On the basis of charge sheet, charge for committing offences punishable under Sections 420/506/34 IPC and under Section 4 of PCMC Act was framed against both accused persons to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined following witnesses:
Sr. No Name Nature of Evidence
1. PW-1/Raju Complainant
2. PW-2/Meenu Sharma Public witness
3. PW-3/Sunita Sama Public witness
4. PW-4/Amita Lal Public witness
5. PW-5/Amit Kumar Public witness
6. PW-6/Preeti Salian Public witness
7. PW-7/Sunil Kumar 2nd IO
8. PW-8/Inspector Arvind 1st IO
Kumar
9. PW-9/Ms. Birma Public witness
5. Prosecution has relied upon the following documents:
State Vs. Rajender Shokeen & Anr.
FIR No.38/2014; PS Sector 23 Dwarka Page No.3 of 25
S. Exhibits Documents
No.
1. Ex.PW-1/A Complaint made before police by
complainant
2. Ex.PW-1/B Reply of notice u/s 91 Cr.PC by complainant
3. Ex.PW-7/1 Arrest memo of accused Rajender Shokeen
and Ex.P2
4. Ex.PW-7/2 Disclosure statement of accused Rajender
Shokeen
5. Ex.P-3 Arrest memo of accused Poonam Shokeen
6. Ex.PW-7/3 Disclosure statement of accused Poonam
Shokeen
7. Mark X Endorsement
8. Mark PW-9/A Statement under Section 161 Cr.PC of PW Birma Devi.
9. Ex.P1 FIR
6. Thereafter, PE was closed and statements of accused were recorded under Section 313 Cr.PC, wherein they claimed that they were not running any chit fund scheme. They also denied taking any amount from anyone on account of chit fund scheme. They further stated that they did not know the complainant Raju. They did not lead evidence in defence.
7. Arguments heard. Record perused.
8. The evidence of prosecution witnesses in the present case is discussed briefly hereunder:
State Vs. Rajender Shokeen & Anr.
FIR No.38/2014; PS Sector 23 Dwarka Page No.4 of 25
(i) PW1 Raju deposed that he met accused
Poonam Shokeen at the house of one Sunita Sama. Co-accused Rajender Shokeen also used to come there. Both accused persons told him about investment in committees for earning profit. Both accused persons induced him by giving false assurances of making good profits if he invested in the committee with them. In June 2012, he became member of committee and paid Rs.3,31,875/-. After he had paid 3-4 instalments, accused persons told him to pay an amount of Rs.2,90,000/- and assured him to return Rs.6,00,000/-. No slip/acknowledgment was issued by accused persons. Thereafter, this witness paid Rs.2,90,000/- but Rs.6,00,000/- were never given by accused persons. Complaint against accused was given in 2013 and IO recorded his statement.
Witness was cross-examined by Ld. APP since he had resiled from his previous statement. During cross- examination, he admitted that every month boli used to take place at the house of accused persons. Accused Poonam used to make entries in her diary of the payments made by this witness. In March, 2013, he came to know that one Renu Sharma (friend of accused Poonam) had run away with members money but accused Poonam assured him that money will be returned. Upon assurance of accused Poonam, he paid Rs.41,200/- in March 2013 for committee started in June 2012. In April 2013, he came to know that accused Poonam was not making payments to committee members. Accused Rajender was aware State Vs. Rajender Shokeen & Anr.
FIR No.38/2014; PS Sector 23 Dwarka Page No.5 of 25 about the committees run by his wife and that they had made investments from the members' money. Whenever he went to ask for money, accused persons used to threaten him with dire consequences. Accused Poonam Shokeen by misrepresentation of facts had fraudulently induced him and others to give her money. FIR No. 391 to 395 of 2013 have been registered against her on similar facts.
During cross-examination by accused, he could not recall the exact date in June 2012 when he visited the house of Sunita Sama. He denied the suggestion that he had filed a false complaint against accused persons at the instance of Sunita Sama. He could not recall the exact amount of instalments given for committee in June 2012 and stated that one instalment of 3,31,875/- was in June 2012. Rs.2,90,000/- was given to the accused after 3-4 months from June 2012. There were 12 members of the committee and some of them were Anita Lakra, Sunita Sama, Sharda, Ankita, Renu Sharma, Rekha and Ashok. He stated that no receipt of payment was given by accused persons and no written agreement was executed between them for the same. He denied the suggestion that accused persons did not run any chit fund company or committees. He denied the suggestion that accused persons never induced him to invest in committees to earn profit.
(ii) PW-2 Meenu Sharma deposed that accused Poonam was running a committee in which she had invested State Vs. Rajender Shokeen & Anr.
FIR No.38/2014; PS Sector 23 Dwarka Page No.6 of 25 Rs.1,25,000/-. Case was filed against Poonam Shokeen as money was not returned by her. Accused Poonam Shokeen returned the money after filing of the case.
During cross-examination, she stated that her complaint was registered vide FIR No. 392/2013 PS Dwarka North. She stated that she did not know the complainant of the present case. She denied the suggestion that accused persons did not run committees. She admitted that she did not have any receipts/record to show that accused persons were running chit fund/committees.
(iii) PW-3 Sunita Sama deposed that accused persons used to reside near her house. They used to run committees and invest in properties. They requested this witness to invest money in their committee. One person Raju who used to visit her house also invested in the committees run by accused in year 2012-2013. Accused persons used to make fake promises to induce investors. Accused persons threatened her to withdraw the case. She correctly identified both the accused present in Court.
During cross-examination, she stated that she knew the complainant since last 30 years. She was confronted with her statement under Section 161 Cr.PC where certain facts deposed by her during her evidence were not mentioned. She knew the accused persons since 2011. She denied the suggestion that present false case was filed against accused State Vs. Rajender Shokeen & Anr.
FIR No.38/2014; PS Sector 23 Dwarka Page No.7 of 25 persons along with complainant Raju to extort money. She denied the suggestion that documents to show payments made to accused persons for committee were not filed by her. She clarified that said documents were filed in FIR No. 37/2014 in which she was the complainant. She denied the suggestion that complainant Raju did not make any payment in committee in her presence.
(iv) PW-4 Amita Lal deposed that she knew the accused persons as they were residing in same society. She had given Rs.5,00,000/- to accused persons for investment in committee. The said amount was returned to her after criminal cases were filed by her.
During cross-examination, she stated that she did not know the complainant in the present case and that she did not give any statement to the IO. She admitted that she did not have any record/receipt to show that accused persons were running chit fund/committee. She denied the suggestion that accused persons were not running committees.
(v) PW-5 Amit Kumar deposed that he used to go to the house of accused Rajender Shokeen for investing in committees run by him. Complainant Raju also used to come there and he had invested money in committee of Rs.6,00,000/-.
During cross-examination, he admitted that he did not have any documentary proof that committees were run by State Vs. Rajender Shokeen & Anr.
FIR No.38/2014; PS Sector 23 Dwarka Page No.8 of 25 accused persons.
(vi) PW-6 Preeti Salian deposed that she knew the accused persons as they used to reside in the same society. She had heard that accused persons had some monetary transactions with people but she did not have any transaction with the accused.
During cross-examination, she admitted that transaction between complainant and accused persons did not take place in her presence. She admitted that she did not have any record/receipt to show that accused persons were running chit fund/committee.
(vii) PW-7 SI Sunil deposed that 14 FIRs, all against present accused persons were marked for investigation to him in 2017. Witnesses were examined and their statements were recorded. Accused Rajender Shokeen was formally arrested and his disclosure statement was recorded. Various complainants had identified Rajender Shokeen when his police remand was taken. Co-accused Poonam was not found at that time and she was subsequently arrested. Notices under Section 91 Cr.PC were given to the complainants. He correctly identified the accused persons present in Court.
During cross-examination, he stated that notices were not issued to accused persons as their house was found locked and they were not found at their native place as well. He State Vs. Rajender Shokeen & Anr.
FIR No.38/2014; PS Sector 23 Dwarka Page No.9 of 25 admitted that complainant and other witnesses did not provide any documents pertaining to chit fund company or investments made by them. He admitted that nothing was recovered at the instance of accused persons.
(viii) PW-8 Inspector Arvind deposed that he made efforts to search accused persons during investigation but they were not found at their address. He was thereafter transferred.
He was not cross-examined despite opportunity.
(ix) PW-9 Birma stated that she was not aware about the facts of the present case.
Witness was cross-examined by Ld. APP since she had resiled from her previous statement. During cross- examination, she admitted that accused Poonam Shokeen used to reside in the same society. She denied the suggestion that accused Poonam Shokeen used to run committees for which money was collected on monthly basis from members. She denied the suggestion that accused Poonam Shokeen used to maintain record of the committees run by her. She denied the suggestion that she became member of committee in May 2012 and had paid an amount of Rs.1,71,537/-. She was confronted with her statement under Section 161 Cr.PC but she had denied giving any such statement to the IO.
During cross-examination, she stated that she did not know complainant Raju. She admitted that accused persons State Vs. Rajender Shokeen & Anr.
FIR No.38/2014; PS Sector 23 Dwarka Page No.10 of 25 were not running any committees.
9. Analysis & Findings:
Charge under Section 4, PCMC Act:
I. Charge under Section 4 of PCMC Act has been framed against both accused.
II. It is alleged against accused persons that they were running committees whereby they induced many people to enroll as members and invest various sums in pursuance of aforesaid committees. The prosecution has alleged that running of such committees is prohibited under PCMC Act and accused have committed offence punishable under Section 4 of PCMC Act.
Per contra, it is the version of accused persons that they were not running committees as alleged by the prosecution. They also denied that they induced people to invest in committees with assurances of high returns and denied receiving any money on that account.
III. Section 3 of PCMC Act prohibits any person from promoting and conducting any prize chit or money circulation scheme. Section 4 of this Act makes violation of Section 3 a punishable offence.
Section 2 is the definition clause . S. 2(e) defines State Vs. Rajender Shokeen & Anr.
FIR No.38/2014; PS Sector 23 Dwarka Page No.11 of 25 'prize chit' as 'any transaction or arrangement by whatever name called, under which a person collects whether as a promoter, foreman, agent or in any other capacity, monies in one lump sum or in installment by way of contributions or subscriptions or by sale of units, certificates or other instruments or in any other manner or as membership fees or admission fees or service charges to or in respect to any savings, mutual benefit, thrift, or any other scheme or arrangement by whatever name called, and utilizes the monies so collected or any part thereof or the income accruing from investment or other use of such monies for:
(i) giving or awarding periodically or otherwise to a specified number of subscribers as determined by lot, draw or in any other manner, prizes or gifts in cash or in kind, whether or not the recipient of the prize or gift is under a liability to make any further payment in respect of such scheme or arrangement, or
(ii) refunding to the subscribers or such of them as have not won any prize or gift, the whole or part of the subscriptions, contributions or other monies collected, with or without any bonus, premium, interest or any other advantage by whatever name called, on the termination of the scheme or arrangement, or on or after the expiry of the period stipulated therein;
but does not include a conventional chit.' IV. The aforesaid definition of 'prize chit' specifically states that it does not cover 'conventional chit' which is defined as per Section 2(a) of the Act, to mean "..a transaction whether State Vs. Rajender Shokeen & Anr.
FIR No.38/2014; PS Sector 23 Dwarka Page No.12 of 25 called chit, chit fund, kuri or by any other name by or under which a person responsible for the conduct of the chit enters into an agreement with a specified number of persons that every one of them shall subscribe a certain sum of money by way of periodical installments for a definite period and that each subscriber shall, in his turn, as determined by lot or by auction or by tender or in such other manner as may be provided for in the chit agreement, be entitled to a prize amount."
V. Thus, the Act clearly prohibits the conduct of prize chits but conventional chits are excluded from the operation of Section 3/4/5 of PCMC Act. Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in Registrar of Firms, Societies and Chits, Uttar Pradesh vs. Secured Investment Company, Lucknow and Anr, 1988 AIR 492, that conventional chits are not prohibited under the Act as only prize chits are banned under Section 3 of the Act.
The features of conventional chits have been explained as:
"It was meant for mutual benefit in which some people joined to save and others to borrow. What distinguishes the chit fund, however, from other financial transactions is that it connects the borrowing class directly with the lending class. The pooled saving is lent out to the same group of contributors. A chit fund collects the savings of the members by periodical subscriptions for a definite period. At the same time, it makes available the pooled savings to each member by turn as agreed by them, The collected fund State Vs. Rajender Shokeen & Anr.
FIR No.38/2014; PS Sector 23 Dwarka Page No.13 of 25 may be given either by drawing lots or by bidding. Lots are drawn periodically and the member whose name appears on the winning chit gets the collection without any deductions. He, however, continues to pay his subscriptions but his name is removed from subsequent lots. Thus every member gets a chance to receive the whole amount of the chit. This is generally the features of a conventional chit. It is operated without a professional promoter or manager and without any risk of loss of capital."
In the same judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has explained 'Prize Chit' as:
"Leaving aside the verbiage, if we rewrite the definition which reeks of simplicity, it runs like this: Prize chit includes a scheme by which a person in whatever name collects moneys from individuals for the purpose of giving prizes and refunding the balance with or with out premium after the expiry of a specified period."
VI. Thus, a conventional chit, as opposed to a prize chit, has a finite numbers of pre-determined members and each member has to contribute the subscription for the entire term, irrespective of the draw of lot in his favour at any stage of the agreed term of the chit. All the members of the conventional chit subscribe the same amount for the entire duration and every member draws the lot in his favour only once during the term of the chit.
State Vs. Rajender Shokeen & Anr.
FIR No.38/2014; PS Sector 23 Dwarka Page No.14 of 25 On the other hand, in a prize chit the members can join/subscribe the chit at an intermediate stage and may still win the prize chit without paying the same subscription amount as other members. A prize chit need not to be drawn in favour of all subscribers at least once, and after one or more draws of prize, the chit can be closed and the subscription money returned to the members. Further, once a member receives the prize chit in his favour, he is under no obligation to continue to pay his part of the subscription and may opt out of the chit.
VII. In light of the aforesaid distinguishing features between conventional and prize chit, we come to the facts of the present case.
In the present case, the prosecution was required to lead cogent evidence to show that the accused persons were running prize chits or money circulation schemes. They were further required to demonstrate by way of cogent evidence that acts of accused in running chit fund scheme were out of the purview of conventional chits.
VIII. The evidence of public witnesses and police witnesses along with material on record has to be analyzed in this scenario.
The evidence of PW 1 Complainant Raju is to the State Vs. Rajender Shokeen & Anr.
FIR No.38/2014; PS Sector 23 Dwarka Page No.15 of 25 effect that accused persons induced him by giving false assurances of high returns if he invested in committees run by them. Consequently, he became member of committee in June 2012 and paid Rs.3,31,875 and then a further lumpsum amount of Rs.2,90,000/-. He further deposed that no receipts were given by accused persons and that accused Poonam Shokeen used to make entry of payments in her diary.
Similarly, the evidence of PW2 Meenu Sharma is to the effect that accused persons were running committees and she had invested Rs.1,25,000/- and her money was returned after she filed a complaint against accused persons. She also admitted that she did not have receipts/record to show that accused persons were running committees.
Evidence of PW3 Sunita Sama is to the effect that accused persons were running committees and she had invested some amount in committee in year 2012-13.
Similarly, the evidence of PW4 Amita Lal is to the effect that accused persons were running committees and she had invested Rs.5,00,000/- and her money was returned after she filed a complaint against accused persons. She also admitted that she did not have receipts/record to show that accused persons were running committees/chit fund.
Similarly, the evidence of PW5 Amit Kumar is to the effect that accused persons were running committees and he had gone to their house to pay money for the same. State Vs. Rajender Shokeen & Anr.
FIR No.38/2014; PS Sector 23 Dwarka Page No.16 of 25 Similarly, PW6 Preeti Salian had deposed that she did not have any transactions with accused persons and that no transactions qua investment in committees were done in her presence.
PW9 Birma did not support the case of prosecution and simply stated that she was not aware about any facts.
PW7 IO SI Sunil Kumar deposed that while investigation of the present case, he had recorded statements of witnesses under Section 161 CrPC. He also stated that nothing was recovered at the instance of accused persons and further that complainant and other public witnesses did not provide any documents to show that accused were indeed running chit funds/committees and that the witnesses/victims had invested therein.
Perusal of evidence of public witnesses shows that their testimonies are general in nature and are to the effect that accused persons were running committees and that they had invested in those. No public witness has deposed about the modus operandi of such committees and that how were members added and what was the mode of subscription. No PW/subscriber of the chit has deposed that the members of the chit could be added any time in between the continuance of one chit. None of the public persons/PWs has been able to depose the exact amount of money subscribed by them. All the PWs have merely deposed random amounts which they contributed State Vs. Rajender Shokeen & Anr.
FIR No.38/2014; PS Sector 23 Dwarka Page No.17 of 25 towards various committees. None of the said witness has been able to show any document/receipt to show the exact payment made by them. Similarly, none of the witnesses has been able to depose the exact duration or exact number of members etc. pertaining to any committees. Further, IO has not conducted any investigation to show the nature of scheme allegedly run by accused persons. He has simply stated that nothing was recovered from accused persons. While many public witnesses have deposed that accused were running committees in which they had subscribed and invested, there is no evidence to record to show that the said schemes were in the nature of conventional chits, prize chits or money circulation scheme.
In view of the various ambiguities as to the nature of scheme run by accused persons, prosecution has failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that accused persons were running schemes in the nature of prize chits and money circulation schemes, which are banned as per PCMC Act. Thus, both accused persons are acquitted under Section 4 of PCMC Act.
Charge under Section 420 IPC:
I. Charge under Section 420/34 IPC has been framed against both accused. It is alleged against accused persons that they were running committees whereby they induced many people to enroll as members and invest various sums in such committees. It is further averred that complainant Raju was State Vs. Rajender Shokeen & Anr.
FIR No.38/2014; PS Sector 23 Dwarka Page No.18 of 25 dishonestly induced by accused persons to invest in the committees run by accused persons and thereby cheated by accused persons. As per record, complainant has stated to have invested Rs.3,31,875/- in June 2012, Rs.2,90,000/- on a subsequent occasion (date not recalled) and Rs.41,200/- in March 2013.
II. To prove commission of offence under Section 420 IPC, prosecution is required to prove the following ingredients:
(i) a person must commit the offence of
cheating under Section 415; and
(ii) the person cheated must be dishonestly
induced to;
(iii) deliver property to any person; or
(iv) make, alter or destroy valuable security
or anything signed or sealed and capable
of being converted into valuable security III. It is thus paramount that in order to attract the provisions of Section 420 IPC, the prosecution has to not only prove that the accused has cheated someone but also that by doing so, he has dishonestly induced the person who is cheated to deliver property.
There are, thus, three components of this offence:
State Vs. Rajender Shokeen & Anr.
FIR No.38/2014; PS Sector 23 Dwarka Page No.19 of 25
(i) deception of any person,
(ii) fraudulently or dishonestly inducing that person to
deliver any property to any person, and
(iii) mens rea or dishonest intention of the accused at the
time of making the inducement.
IV. It is also trite law that for the offence of cheating,
fraudulent and dishonest intention must exist from the inception when the promise or representation was made by accused. Further, a statement of fact is deemed 'deceitful' when it is false, and is knowingly or recklessly made with the intent that it shall be acted upon by another person, resulting in damage or loss.
V. The evidence brought on record in the present case has to be considered on the aforesaid parameters of law.
VI. Complainant Raju has deposed that he met accused Poonam Shokeen at the house of one Sunita Sama. Accused represented to the complainant that if he invested in those committees, he will earn good returns which would be much more than earnings from his shop. After complainant had invested substantial amount of money in those committees with assurance of good returns, accused persons refused to return his money. He has further deposed that whenever he used to make State Vs. Rajender Shokeen & Anr.
FIR No.38/2014; PS Sector 23 Dwarka Page No.20 of 25 inquiries about his amount, accused Poonam Shokeen assured him to not worry about his money.
PW3 Sunita Sama also supported the prosecution version that accused persons used run committees. She has also deposed that accused persons used to induce people by making false assurances and fake promises. She was also misled by their fake promises to invest in these committees.
PW2 Meenu Sharma and PW5 Amita Lal have simply stated that they were members of committees run by accused persons. After their invested money was not returned by accused persons, criminal cases were filed which got settled in mediation and payments were made by accused persons.
VII. In common parlance, deception implies intentionally leading someone to believe something that is not true. This deliberate inducement may be direct or indirect and by words or conduct. It may be expressed or implied in the nature of transaction.
VIII. In the present case, complainant has categorically stated that accused Poonam Shokeen represented to him that investment in committees run by her would fetch the complainant good returns after which complainant became member of various committees. Further, public witnesses and police witnesses have State Vs. Rajender Shokeen & Anr.
FIR No.38/2014; PS Sector 23 Dwarka Page No.21 of 25 deposed that despite these promises of high returns, accused left their address. This subsequent conduct of accused persons further lends credence to the fact that their intention was to merely induce the persons to invest in committees without any intention of actually honouring this commitment. This shows that the intention of accused persons from the inception was to collect the investments from people after giving false assurances. It is also evident from the testimony of witnesses and material on record that complainant was influenced by the representations made by accused persons leading him to subsequently invest in the committees.
IX. To fasten culpability under Section 420, prosecution was further required to prove delivery of property/money by complainant to accused persons. Perusal of record and testimony of complainant does not inspire the confidence of Court on the aspect of delivery of property.
X. As per record, complainant has stated to have invested Rs.3,31,875/- in June 2012, Rs.2,90,000/- on a subsequent occasion (date not recalled) and Rs.41,200/- in March 2013. During his cross examination, he stated that accused Poonam used to make enty of payments made to her by him in a diary. However, there is no record to substantiate this fact. No record or document or receipt was recovered from the accused State Vs. Rajender Shokeen & Anr.
FIR No.38/2014; PS Sector 23 Dwarka Page No.22 of 25 persons during investigation.
Further, complainant had stated to have invested Rs.3,31,875/- in June 2012 which was paid by him in 3-4 installments. However, he subsequently stated that amount of Rs.3,31,875/- was paid by him in one go. Further, witness has given evasive replies to the questions directed at his expenses and earnings. This has to be considered along side the fact that no receipt/ document was produced by witness to substantiate parting with aforesaid amount for investment in committees. At least, the witness could have produced his pass book or account statement to show availability of funds for such hefty payments. Alternatively, he could have explained about his savings which enabled him to make these payments.
XI. Further, except PW Sunita Sama, none of the public witnesses examined in the present case have testified that complainant was a member of the same committees in which they had invested. None of the prosecution witnesses have deposed that complainant paid any amount to accused persons in their presence. PW Sunita Sama had stated that complainant Raju had also invested in committees run by accused. However, during cross examination, her statement under Section 161 CrPC was put to her wherein these facts were not found. Further, she could state the specific instances when payments were made by complainant to accused persons, on account of committees. State Vs. Rajender Shokeen & Anr.
FIR No.38/2014; PS Sector 23 Dwarka Page No.23 of 25 XII. Thus, while the prosecution has successfully proved the ingredients of deception and dishonest inducement, it has failed to prove delivery of property/money to accused persons on account of such inducement. Accordingly, the charge under Section 420 IPC has not been proved beyond reasonble doubt against accused persons.
Charge under Section 506 IPC:
I. Charge under Section 506 IPC has also been framed against the accused persons. To prove the offence under S.506 IPC, prosecution was required to prove that accused had threatened the complainant to cause death or grievous hurt. Further, it was to be proved that such threats caused alarm to the complainant. However, the complainant has not been able to prove the offence under S.506 against the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
II. Before an offence of criminal intimidation is made out, it must be established that an accused had an intention to cause alarm to the complainant. Mere threats given by the accused not with an intention to cause alarm to the complainant would not constitute an offence of criminal intimidation. Intention of the accused has to be gathered from the act complained of and the circumstances under which it is committed. Intention, being a State Vs. Rajender Shokeen & Anr.
FIR No.38/2014; PS Sector 23 Dwarka Page No.24 of 25 state of mind, cannot be proved by direct evidence. It has to be inferred from facts and circumstances of a given case.
III. Complainant has alleged that acts of accused persons had hurt him mentally and financially. He had further mentioned in his complaint that acts of accused caused loss of his hard earned money. However, in the entire material brought on record, there are no specific instances or specific details that the threats given to complainant actually caused any alarm to him at any point of time.
10. In view of the above discussion, accused Rajender Shokeen and Poonam Shokeen stand acquitted under Sections 420/506/34 IPC & Section 4 Prize Chits & Money Circulation Scheme (Banning) Act,1978. Digitally signed by Samiksha Samiksha Gupta Pronounced in open Court Gupta Date:
on 24th of August, 2024 2024.08.24
15:35:37
+0530
SAMIKSHA GUPTA
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate
Dwarka Courts: New Delhi
24.08.2024
State Vs. Rajender Shokeen & Anr.
FIR No.38/2014; PS Sector 23 Dwarka Page No.25 of 25