Delhi District Court
Sheela Devi vs . State & Ors. on 16 April, 2018
Sheela Devi Vs. State & ors.
CR No: 523 /17
IN THE COURT OF SH. HARISH DUDANI, SPECIAL JUDGE,
(PC ACT) CBI-I DWARKA COURTS; NEW DELHI
Sheela Devi
D/o Late Radha Kishan
R/o A-120, Vijay Nagar, Mohan Garden
Uttam Nagar,
New Delhi- 110059.
.............. Revisionist
VERSUS
1. The State ( NCT of Delhi)
Through Chief Public Prosecutor
Dwarka Courts, Delhi.
2. Ganga Sharan
S/o Sh. Mohar Singh
R/o F-69, Sidhartha Enclave
Bhagwati Garden Opp.
Good Lunch Public School
Mohan Garden, Uttam nagar
New Delhi-110059.
3. Smt. Shakuntala
W/o Sh. Ganga Sharan
R/o F-69, Sidhartha Enclave
Bhagwati Garden Opp.
Good Lunch Public School
Mohan Garden, Uttam nagar
New Delhi-110059.
4. Lalit
S/o Sh. Ganga Sharan
R/o F-69, Sidhartha Enclave
Bhagwati Garden Opp.
Good Lunch Public School
Mohan Garden, Uttam nagar
New Delhi-110059.
CR No: 523/2017 Page 1 of 23 D.O.J. 16.04.2018
Sheela Devi Vs. State & ors.
CR No: 523 /17
5. Amit
S/o Sh. Ganga Sharan
R/o F-69, Sidhartha Enclave
Bhagwati Garden Opp.
Good Lunch Public School
Mohan Garden, Uttam nagar
New Delhi-110059.
6. Subhash
S/o Not Known
R/o F-69, Sidhartha Enclave
Bhagwati Garden Opp.
Good Lunch Public School
Mohan Garden, Uttam nagar
New Delhi-110059.
....... Respondents
CR No. 523/2017
Date of Institution 21.11.2017
Police Station Uttam Nagar
Reserved for orders on 05.04.2018
Judgment announced on 16.04.2018
JUDGMENT
1. This revision petition under Section 397 Cr.P.C. r/w 401 Cr.P.C. is directed against the order dated 05.09.2017 passed by Ld. ACMM (SW), Dwarka Courts, CR No: 523/2017 Page 2 of 23 D.O.J. 16.04.2018 Sheela Devi Vs. State & ors.
CR No: 523 /17 Delhi thereby the application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. filed by the complainant (revisionist herein) was dismissed. Briefly stated facts relevant for the disposal of the revision petitions are as under:
2. The present revision petition arises out of Complaint Case No. 35/17, titled as Sheela Devi Vs. Ganga Saran & Ors. filed by the complainant Ms. Sheela Devi under Section 200 Cr.P.C. for commission of offences under Sections 323/341/356/379/380/452/506/34 IPC read with Section 120B IPC.
3. In the complaint, the complainant (revisionist herein) has stated that her husband had abandoned her with her minor daughter namely Neha in the year 1986 and since the year 2001 she started living with Sh. Ganga Sharan (respondent no. 2 herein) who is working as constable in Delhi Police in a "Live-in" relationship in her own property bearing number A-120, Vijay Nagar, Mohan Garden, Uttam Nagar, New Delhi which was purchased out of her own savings and Sh. Ganga Saran (respondent no. 2 herein) was performing all duties and exercising all rights as husband with the petitioner.
4. In the complaint, the complainant has further stated that Smt. Shakuntala ( Respondent No. 3 herein) is the wife of Ganga Saran(respondent no. 2 herein) and accused Lalit, Amit and Subhash (respondent no. 4 to 6 herein) are stated to be sons and nephew of Ganga CR No: 523/2017 Page 3 of 23 D.O.J. 16.04.2018 Sheela Devi Vs. State & ors.
CR No: 523 /17 Saran (respondent no. 2 herein).
5. It is further stated in the complaint that accused Ganga Saran (respondent no. 2 herein) had been pressurizing the complainant (revisionist herein) for last 3- 4 years to dispose off her property and on resistance to the demand of accused Ganga Saran (respondent no. 2) by the complainant (revisionist herein), she was subjected to physical cruelty at the hands of accused Ganga Saran (respondent no. 2 herein). It is further stated in the complaint that on 29.09.2016 the daughter of the complainant got married and the complainant remained alone and Ganga Saran (respondent no. 2 herein) again started playing tactics in order to get the property disposed off.
6. It is further stated in the complaint that in the night of 25.10.2016 when daughter of the complainant visited the house of complainant, the accused Ganga Saran(respondent no. 2 herein) executed his illegal design and beat the complainant (revisionist herein) and her daughter mercilessly and threatened the complainant to hand over the original title documents of the property, otherwise he will kill her daughter and on raising their voice, the accused Ganga Saran (respondent no. 2 herein) snatched the original ownership/title documents of the property of the complainant and ran away from the spot.
7. It is further stated in the complaint that on CR No: 523/2017 Page 4 of 23 D.O.J. 16.04.2018 Sheela Devi Vs. State & ors.
CR No: 523 /17 coming to know about the written complaint made to SHO, PS Uttam Nagar, Delhi by revisionist regarding snatching the original ownership documents of her property by accused Ganga Saran (respondent no. 2 herein), he (respondent no. 2 herein) along with accused persons namely Smt. Shakuntala, Lalit, Amit and Subhash (respondent no. 3 to 6 herein) visited the house of complainant and threatened to kill her and her daughter in case she does not dispose off the property according to their choice.
8. It is further stated in the complaint that on 04.11.2016 again accused Ganga Saran (respondent no. 2 herein) visited the house of complainant and threatened her of dire consequences and complainant made a call on 100 number but no action was taken by the police.
9. It is further stated in the complaint that fearing for her life the complainant went to her parental house and when she came back on 07.11.2016, it was revealed that in the previous night accused Ganga Saran (respondent no. 2 herein) along with other accused persons came to her property and broke the lock of her property and stole some jewellery and cash and consumed liquor and took dinner in her property and then she reported the matter to the police station Uttam Nagar but no action was taken by the police and even no preliminary enquiry was conducted by the police.
CR No: 523/2017 Page 5 of 23 D.O.J. 16.04.2018 Sheela Devi Vs. State & ors.
CR No: 523 /17
10. It is further stated in the complaint that on account of threats given by accused persons (respondent no. 2 to 6 herein) on regular intervals, the complainant again made written complaints on 14.02.2017 and 14.03.2017 to the police station Uttam Nagar, Delhi but again no action was taken by the police and even no preliminary enquiry was conducted by the police and thereafter complainant made a written complaint to concerned DCP on 18.03.2017 but no action was taken against the accused persons (respondents herein).
11. Along with the complainant under Section 200 Cr.P.C. dated 26.04.2017, the complainant (revisionist herein) has filed an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. seeking registration of FIR for offences under Sections 323/341/356/379/380/452/506/34 IPC read with Section 120B IPC. However, the said application of the complainant (revisionist herein) under Section 156 (3) cr.P.C. was dismissed by Ld. Trial Court vide impugned order dated 05.09.2017.
12. Aggrieved by the order dated 05.09.2017 whereby Ld. Trial Court has been pleased to dismiss the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. of the complainant, the complainant has filed the present revision petition.
13. The revisionist has challanged the impugned order dated 05.09.2017 on the grounds that impugned CR No: 523/2017 Page 6 of 23 D.O.J. 16.04.2018 Sheela Devi Vs. State & ors.
CR No: 523 /17 order has been passed on surmises and conjectures and status report dated 01.06.2017 reveals that proper investigation has not been conducted in respect of all the incidences and is biased towards the respondents as police officials of PS Uttam Nagar have shielded the respondent no. 2 as he is working in Delhi police. It is stated that Ld. Trial Court has not correctly appreciated the provisions of Section 156(3) Cr.P.C and the Ld. Trial Court has also not appreciated that under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., the Court is empowered to direct the police to investigate the matter. It is stated that the complaints made by the revisionist clearly disclose the commission of cognizable offences and police has flouted the mandated requirement of registration of FIR. It is stated that impugned order dated 05.09.2017 is totally contrary to law and is not sustainable and suffers from material irregularity and illegality and is liable to be set aside. It is prayed that impugned order dated 05.09.2017 be set aside.
14. I have heard Ld. Counsel for the revisionist and perused the records.
15. As per Trial Court Record, vide order dated 27.04.2017, Ld. Trial Court was pleased to direct for calling of action taken report from the concerned police Station for 02.06.2017. As per order dated 02.06.2017, the status report dated 01.06.2017 was filed before the CR No: 523/2017 Page 7 of 23 D.O.J. 16.04.2018 Sheela Devi Vs. State & ors.
CR No: 523 /17 Ld. Trial Court by ASI Ram Tek stating therein that he made enquiries and came to know that the complainant Sheela Devi and Ganga Saran have altercations regarding the house and on the complaint of complainant, one Non- Cognizable Report has been registered at PS Uttam Nagar under Section 506 IPC.
16. Chapter XII of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 deals with information to the police and their powers to investigate the offences. This chapter provides an alternative as well as additional remedy to a complainant whose complaint is either not entertained by the police or who does not feel satisfied by the investigations being conducted by the Police.
17. Section 156 reads as:
156. Police officer's power to investigate cognizable case.
(1) Any officer in charge of a police station may, without the order of a Magistrate, investigate any cognizable case which a Court having jurisdiction over the local area within the limits of such station would have power to inquire into or try under the provisions of Chapter XIII.
(2) No proceeding of a police officer in any such case shall at any stage be called in question on the ground that the case was one which such officer was not empowered under this section to investigate. (3) Any Magistrate empowered under section 190 CR No: 523/2017 Page 8 of 23 D.O.J. 16.04.2018 Sheela Devi Vs. State & ors.
CR No: 523 /17 may order such an investigation as above-mentioned.
18. In Lalita Kumari v. Govt. of UP & Ors. (2014) 2 SCC 1, Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has been pleased to observe that:
(91) In Madhu Bala (supra), this court held:
6. ...............
9. ..............
10. From the foregoing discussion it is evident that whenever a Magistrate directs an investigation on a complaint the police has to register a cognizable case on that complaint treating the same as the FIR and comply with the requirements of the above Rules. It, therefore, passes our comprehension as to how the direction of a Magistrate asking the police to register a case makes an order of investigation under Section 156(3) legally unsustainable. Indeed, even if a Magistrate does not pass a direction to register a case, still in view of the provisions of Section 156(1) of the Code which empowers the police to investigate into a cognizable case and the Rules framed under the Indian Police Act, 1861 it (the police) is duty-bound to formally register a case and then investigate into the same. The provisions of the Code, therefore, do not in any way stand in the way of a Magistrate to direct the police to register a case at the police station and then investigate into the same. In our opinion when an CR No: 523/2017 Page 9 of 23 D.O.J. 16.04.2018 Sheela Devi Vs. State & ors.
CR No: 523 /17 order for investigation under Section 156(3) of the Code is to be made the proper direction to the police would be to register a case at the police station treating the complaint as the first information report and investigate into the same. .................................... .................................... ....................................
111) In view of the aforesaid discussion, we hold:
i) Registration of FIR is mandatory under Section 154 of the Code, if the information discloses commission of a cognizable offence and no preliminary inquiry is permissible in such a situation.
ii) If the information received does not disclose a cognizable offence but indicates the necessity for an inquiry, a preliminary inquiry may be conducted only to ascertain whether cognizable offence is disclosed or not.
iii) If the inquiry discloses the commission of a cognizable offence, the FIR must be registered. In cases where preliminary inquiry ends in closing the complaint, a copy of the entry of such closure must be supplied to the first informant forthwith and not later than one week. It must disclose reasons in brief for closing the complaint and not proceeding further.
iv) The police officer cannot avoid his duty of CR No: 523/2017 Page 10 of 23 D.O.J. 16.04.2018 Sheela Devi Vs. State & ors.
CR No: 523 /17 registering offence if cognizable offence is disclosed. Action must be taken against erring officers who do not register the FIR if information received by him discloses a cognizable offence.
v) The scope of preliminary inquiry is not to verify the veracity or otherwise of the information received but only to ascertain whether the information reveals any cognizable offence.
vi) As to what type and in which cases preliminary inquiry is to be conducted will depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. The category of cases in which preliminary inquiry may be made are as under:
a) Matrimonial disputes/family disputes
b) Commercial offences
c) Medical negligence cases
d) Corruption cases
e) Cases where there is abnormal delay/laches in initiating criminal prosecution, for example, over 3 months delay in reporting the matter without satisfactorily explaining the reasons for delay.
The aforesaid are only illustrations and not exhaustive of all conditions which may warrant preliminary inquiry.
vii) While ensuring and protecting the rights of the accused and the complainant, a preliminary inquiry should be made time CR No: 523/2017 Page 11 of 23 D.O.J. 16.04.2018 Sheela Devi Vs. State & ors.
CR No: 523 /17 bound and in any case it should not exceed 7 days. The fact of such delay and the causes of it must be reflected in the General Diary entry.
viii) Since the General Diary/Station Diary/Daily Diary is the record of all information received in a police station, we direct that all information relating to cognizable offences, whether resulting in registration of FIR or leading to an inquiry, must be mandatorily and meticulously reflected in the said Diary and the decision to conduct a preliminary inquiry must also be reflected, as mentioned above.
19. In Ramdev Food Products Private Limited v. State of Gujarat, (2015) 6 Supreme Court Cases 439, Hon'ble Supreme Court was pleased to hold:
12. It is further submitted that in the present case, the civil proceedings are pending between the parties where the question of genuineness or otherwise of the partnership deed is an issue.
The process of criminal law cannot be used when a dispute is primarily of civil nature. Simultaneously initiation of criminal proceedings may be permitted where an offence is shown to have been committed. Thus, the CR No: 523/2017 Page 12 of 23 D.O.J. 16.04.2018 Sheela Devi Vs. State & ors.
CR No: 523 /17 Magistrate was entitled to satisfy himself as to whether any cognizable offence had been committed before proceeding further. The Magistrate was not satisfied from the material available that any cognizable offence had been committed and he rightly decided to conduct further enquiry under Section 202. Having regard to the limited nature of inquiry under Section 202 which option had been rightly chosen by the Magistrate, direction to the police to investigate and give a report was limited by the very purpose for which the limited inquiry was to be held, as against procedure for investigation in cases not covered under Section 202 of the Code. The purpose was to enable the Magistrate to decide whether there was ground to proceed further. The Magistrate having taken cognizance of the offence and the police having not registered a criminal case nor the Magistrate having directed registration of criminal case, procedure and power of the police in the matter are different and in such a situation police did not have the power to arrest without permission of the Magistrate as was the view of the Gujarat and other High Courts.
XXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXX
20. It has been held, for the same reasons, CR No: 523/2017 Page 13 of 23 D.O.J. 16.04.2018 Sheela Devi Vs. State & ors.
CR No: 523 /17 that direction by the Magistrate for investigation under Section 156(3) cannot be given mechanically. In Anil Kumar v. M.K. Aiyappa, it was observed: (SCC p.711 para 11) "11. The scope of Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. came up for consideration before this Court in several cases. This Court in Maksud Saiyed case examined the requirement of the application of mind by the Magistrate before exercising jurisdiction under Section 156(3) and held that where jurisdiction is exercised on a complaint filed in terms of Section 156(3) or Section 200 CrPC, the Magistrate is required to apply his mind, in such a case, the Special Judge/Magistrate cannot refer the matter under Section 156(3) against a public servant without a valid sanction order. The application of mind by the Magistrate should be reflected in the order. The mere statement that he has gone through the complaint, documents and heard the complainant, as such, as reflected in the order, will not be sufficient . After going through the complaint, documents and hearing the complainant, what weighed with the Magistrate to order investigation under Section 156(3) CrPC , should be reflected in the order, though a detailed expression of his views is neither required nor warranted. We CR No: 523/2017 Page 14 of 23 D.O.J. 16.04.2018 Sheela Devi Vs. State & ors.
CR No: 523 /17 have already extracted the order passed by the learned Special Judge which , in our view, has stated no reasons for ordering investigation."
The above observations apply to category of cases mentioned in para 120.6 in Lalilta Kumari.
Xxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxx
22. Thus, we answer the first question by holding that:
22.1. The direction under Section 156(3) is to be issued, only after application of mind by the Magistrate. When the Magistrate does not take cognizance and does not find it necessary to postpone the issuance of process and finds a case made out to proceed forthwith, direction under the said provision is issued. In other words, where on account of credibility of information available, or weighing the interest of justice it is considered appropriate to straightaway direct investigation, such a direction is issued.
22.2 The cases where Magistrate takes cognizance and postpones issuance of process are cases where the Magistrate has yet to determine "existence of sufficient ground to proceed". Category of cases falling under para CR No: 523/2017 Page 15 of 23 D.O.J. 16.04.2018 Sheela Devi Vs. State & ors.
CR No: 523 /17 120.6 in Lalita Kumari may fall under Section
202. 22.3 Subject to these broad guidelines available from the scheme of the Code, exercise of discretion by the Magistrate is guided by interest of justice from case to case. Xxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
32. We now come to the last question whether in the present case the Magistrate ought to have proceeded under Section 156(3) instead of Section 202. Our answer is in the negative. The Magistrate has given reasons, which have been upheld by the High Court. The case has been held to be primarily of civil nature. The accused is alleged to have forged partnership. Whether such forgery actually took place, whether it caused any loss to the complainant and whether there is the requisite mens rea are the questions which are yet to be determined. The Magistrate has not found clear material to proceed against the accused. Even a case for summoning has not yet been found. While a transaction giving rise to cause of action for a civil action may also involve a crime in which case resort to criminal proceedings may be justified, there is judicially acknowledged tendency in the commercial world to give CR No: 523/2017 Page 16 of 23 D.O.J. 16.04.2018 Sheela Devi Vs. State & ors.
CR No: 523 /17 colour of a criminal case to a purely commercial transaction. This Court has cautioned against such abuse.
33. In Indian Oil Corpn v. NEPC India Ltd., it was observed: ( SCC pp. 748-49,para 13) "13. While on this issue, it is necessary to take notice of a growing tendency in business circles to convert purely civil disputes into criminal cases. This is obviously on account of a prevalent impression that civil law remedies are time consuming and do not adequately protect the interests of lenders/creditors. Such a tendency is seen in several family disputes also, leading to irretrievable breakdown of marriages/families. There is also an impression that if a person could somehow be entangled in a criminal prosecution, there is a likelihood of imminent settlement. Any effort to settle civil disputes and claims, which do not involve any criminal offence, by applying pressure through criminal prosecution should be deprecated and discouraged. In G. Sagar Suri v. State of UP this Court observed: ( SCC p. 643, para 8) '8. ......It is to be seen if a matter, which is essentially of a civil nature, has been given a cloak of criminal offence. Criminal proceedings are not a short cut of other remedies available in law. Before issuing process a criminal court CR No: 523/2017 Page 17 of 23 D.O.J. 16.04.2018 Sheela Devi Vs. State & ors.
CR No: 523 /17 has to exercise a great deal of caution. For the accused it is a serious matter. This Court has laid certain principles on the basis of which the High Court is to exercise its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code. Jurisdiction under this section has to be exercised to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice."
34. In Pepsi Foods Ltd. v. Judicial Magistrate, it was observed: ( SCC p. 760, para 28) "28. Summoning of an accused in a criminal case is a serious matter. Criminal law cannot be set into motion as a matter of course. It is not that the complainant has to bring only two witnesses to support his allegations in the complaint to have the criminal law set into motion. The order of the Magistrate summoning the accused must reflect that he has applied his mind to the facts of the case and the law applicable thereto. He has to examine the nature of allegations made in the complaint and the evidence both oral and documentary in support thereof and would that be sufficient for the complainant to succeed in bringing CR No: 523/2017 Page 18 of 23 D.O.J. 16.04.2018 Sheela Devi Vs. State & ors.
CR No: 523 /17 charge home to the accused. It is not that the Magistrate is a silent spectator at the time of recording of preliminary evidence before summoning of the accused. The Magistrate has to carefully scrutinise the evidence brought on record and may even himself put questions to the complainant and his witnesses to elicit answers to find out the truthfulness of the allegations or otherwise and then examine if any offence is prima facie committed by all or any of the accused."
20. Section 156(3) of the Code aims at curtailing and controlling the arbitrariness on the part of the police authorities in the matter of registration of FIRs and taking up investigations, even in those cases where the same are warranted.
21. Even though Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. empowers the Magistrate to issue directions to the police to register the FIR but this provision cannot be permitted to be misused by the complainant and the Magistrate is to apply his mind to the fact of each case before passing orders under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. and not to act in a mechanical manner.
22. In M/s Skipper Beverages Pvt. Ltd., Vs. State, 2001 IV AD Delhi 625, Hon'ble High Court of CR No: 523/2017 Page 19 of 23 D.O.J. 16.04.2018 Sheela Devi Vs. State & ors.
CR No: 523 /17 Delhi was pleased to hold:
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 exercised 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 20001 (1) Supreme Page 129 titled "Suresh Chand Jain Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors."
CR No: 523/2017 Page 20 of 23 D.O.J. 16.04.2018 Sheela Devi Vs. State & ors.
CR No: 523 /17
8. In case Arvindbhai Rajivbhai Patel Vs. Dhirubhai Sambhubhai reported in 1998(1) Crimes 351, an Hon'ble Judge of Gujarat High Court took strong exception to the growing tendency of asking the police to investigate cases under Section 156(3) of the Code and advised the Magistrates not to pass orders mechanically. It was held that Magistrates should act under Section 156(3) of the Code only in those cases where the assistance of the police is essentially required and the Magistrate is of the considered view that the complainant on his own may not be in a position to collect and produce evidence in support of the accusations.
9. In the case in hand the allegations in regard to the theft of the cheque could be proved by oral or other evidence. The allegations regarding the forging of the cheque by typing out certain portions therein could also be proved by summoning the original cheque from the bankers and leading required evidence. Therefore, it was not at all a case where the police assistance was required for breaking the case and discovering some evidence which the complainant was unable to collect of his CR No: 523/2017 Page 21 of 23 D.O.J. 16.04.2018 Sheela Devi Vs. State & ors.
CR No: 523 /17 own. This Court, therefore, is of the considered view that learned Trial Judge was justified in declining the request of the complainant to issue directions to Police under Section 156(3) of the code as prayed.
23. In the impugned order dated 05.09.2017, Ld. ACMM(SW) has been pleased to observe :
13. In the present case, the identity of the accused is duly established; no custodial interrogation of accused is required; nothing has to be recovered from the accused or at their instance. The complainant can lead evidence in her favour. No call at 100 number was made on 25.10.2016 and on 07.11.2016, when allegedly the house of the complainant was ransacked, no list of articles which were stolen or taken away were provided.
14. I do not find any ground to direct the police for registration of FIR. The application u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. is dismissed.
24. Looking at the nature of allegations as made in the complaint filed before Ld. ACMM and in view of aforesaid pronouncements, I am of the view that judicial discretion has been exercised by Ld.ACMM properly and in accordance with provisions of law. I find no infirmity in the CR No: 523/2017 Page 22 of 23 D.O.J. 16.04.2018 Sheela Devi Vs. State & ors.
CR No: 523 /17 impugned order dated 05.09.2017. The revision petition is devoid of merits and same is dismissed.
25. TCR be sent back to the court concerned along with copy of this judgment. Revision file be consigned to record room.
Announced in the open ( HARISH DUDANI) Court on 16.04.2018 Special Judge ( PC Act) CBI-I Dwarka Courts, New Delhi.
Digitally signed HARISH by HARISH
DUDANI
DUDANI Date: 2018.04.16
14:46:32 +0530
CR No: 523/2017 Page 23 of 23 D.O.J. 16.04.2018