Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Delhi District Court

Cr. Case/425066/2016 on 16 May, 2019

           IN THE COURT OF Dr. SUMEDH KUMAR SETHI,
        CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE (SOUTH­WEST),
                  DWARKA COURTS, NEW DELHI


State v. Ekta Bharti and another
FIR No. 118/2014
Police Station : Najafgarh
Under Section :       420/406/34 IPC and Section 4 of the Prize Chits
                      and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act,
                      1978.
Unique Computer ID Number : 425066/2016

Date of institution           : 06.04.2016
Date of reserving             : 15.05.2019
Date of pronouncement : 16.05.2019

                                   JUDGMENT

a) Date of commission of offence : February, 2013

b) Name of the complainant : Smt. Meena Rani, W/o Sh. Sandeep Kumar, R/o Flat no. 796, Sector­14, Pocket B, Om Apartments, Dwarka, New Delhi.

c) Name, parentage and address of : 1. Ekta Bharti, the accused W/o Sh. Ajay Bharti

2. Ajay Bharti S/o Sh. Shyam Lal Both residents of :­ A­41, 3rd Floor, Gali no. 3, Uttam Nagar, New Delhi.

State v. Ekta Bharti and Ors.

d) Offence complained of : 420/406/34 IPC and Section 4 of the Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act, 1978.

e) Plea of the accused : Both accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

f)   Final order                        : Both accused stand acquitted
                                          of the offences charged with.
g)   Date of final order                : 16.05.2019



            BRIEF STATEMENT OF FACTS AND REASONS
                       FOR THE DECISION

1. Briefly stated, the case of the prosecution is that in the month of February, 2013, both the accused persons in furtherance of their common intention (being husband and wife), cheated the complainant Smt. Meena Rana by inducing her to invest/hand over a sum of Rs.3,00,000/­ to them on the pretext of doubling the amount in ten months and upon the said inducement, the complainant handed over a sum of Rs.3,00,000/­ to the accused persons in the hope of getting good returns, however, the accused persons committed breach of her trust by not paying her the said amount and in fact the accused persons left their residential accommodation. During the said period, the accused persons also promoted prize chit and money circulation scheme. A complaint in this regard was given by the complainant Smt.Meena Devi at PS Dwarka North on 22.11.2013, which was marked to SI Dharmender for investigation. IO SI Dharmender recorded the statements of witnesses U/s 161 Cr. P. C. and since the accused persons had already been arrested in case FIR no. 27/2014 U/s 420/34 IPC and 4 Prize Chits and Money Circulation Scheme (Banning) Act, 1978, the IO got issued their State v. Ekta Bharti and Ors.

production warrants and formally arrested them in the present case after taking due permission from the Ld. Court. During further investigation, the IO collected various documents from various witnesses and also recorded the statements of witnesses U/s 161 Cr. P. C. After completion of investigation, charge­sheet was filed in the court.

2. Vide order dated 13.07.2018, charge for the offences punishable under Section 420/406 read with Section 34 IPC and Section 4 of the Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act, 1978 was served upon the accused persons to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

3. In order to prove the guilt of the accused persons for the offences punishable U/s 420/406 read with Section 4 of the Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act, 1978, the star witness of the case of prosecution is Smt. Meena Rani i.e. the complainant herein. Summons were issued to the complainant Smt. Meena Rani through the Deputy Commissioner of Police concerned. However, as per the report dated 06.05.2019 received from the office of the DCP concerned, the said witness remained unserved. Thus, despite efforts, the prosecution could not trace the complainant and she remained untraceable.

4. IO was called to clarify regarding the other witnesses examined by him and he clarified that similar complaints have been filed by various complainants and different FIRs have been registered on the basis of separate complaints made by separate persons and all the complainants have been mentioned as witnesses in all the cases including the present case. Thus, this court is of the view that in case the complainant is not traceable in the present complaint, then no State v. Ekta Bharti and Ors.

useful purpose will be served by examining the other public witnesses as they will be examined as complainants/witnesses in the cases which were registered on the basis of their respective complaints. It also appears that the offence under Section 4 of the Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act has also been committed in respect of all the complainants and the accused can only be tried once for the said offence. Therefore, no useful purpose would be served by leading further PE in the absence of the complainant despite attempts being made for her service, through the DCP concerned. PE was accordingly closed vide order dated 15.05.2019. Statement of the accused was recorded in conformity of the principles of natural justice. The accused persons did not want to lead DE and DE was accordingly closed vide order dated 15.05.2019.

5. The record has been carefully and thoroughly perused. The respective submissions of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for State and learned counsel for the accused have been heard and considered.

6. It has been argued by Ld. APP for the State that the other witnesses examined by the IO during investigation i.e. Smt. Geetha Sampath Kumar, Smt. Renu Kharb, Smt. Shashi Rawat, Smt. Sunita Malhotra, Smt. Kumkum, Smt. Shakuntala Devi, Smt. Anita Lakra, Smt. Ritu Sharma, Smt. Gurvinder Kaur, Smt. Preeti Salian, Smt. Sunita Sama, Sh. Devender Kumar, Smt. Parveen, Smt. Pushpa Chauhan, Smt. Vinod Kumari Pandey, and Sh. Mahender Kumar can also be summoned to give their evidence with regard to the offences punishable U/s 420/406 IPC and 4 of the Prize Chits and State v. Ekta Bharti and Ors.

Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act, 1978, as they can depose regarding the offence of cheating even qua the complainant who is not traceable.

7. The court has carefully perused the statements of all these witnesses and a careful perusal of the same reveals that none of them in their statements has stated that they had seen the accused persons inducing the complainant Smt. Meena Rani or that she had handed over any money to the accused persons in their presence, nor there is any document on record to suggest so. Further, all these witnesses have deposed regarding the cheating/inducements with them and not with regard to the complainant Smt. Meena Rani i.e. the complainant in the present case. It is noteworthy that on the complaints of the aforesaid witnesses, separate FIRs have already been registered with regard to cheating/inducement with them. Thus, this court is of the view that the aforesaid witnesses cannot be expected to shed any light on the facts of the present case as they can only depose with regard to cheating/inducement with them and not with the complainant of the present case, as it is not the case of the prosecution that the complainant Smt. Meena Rani was cheated/induced in the presence of the aforesaid witnesses or any of them, nor their statements U/s 161 Cr. P. C. suggests so. Further, there is not even a single document on record to suggest that the accused persons were operating/promoting any sort of Prize Chit and Money Circulation Scheme. It is also relevant to note here that the offence under Section 4 of the Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act has also been alleged to have been committed in respect of all the complainants and the accused can only be tried once for the said offence. Alternatively, if separate FIRs would State v. Ekta Bharti and Ors.

have been registered for separate offences, then also it is only the complainant who would have been the best person to shed light on the commission of the said offence in this particular case.

8. In view of the aforesaid, this court is of the considered view that since the complainant's account of the incident/s involved in the present case, could not be brought on record and as discussed herein above, the other witnesses cannot be expected to give the complainant's account/version in the court, the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused persons. Accordingly, the accused persons namely Ekta Bharti and Ajay Bharti are acquitted of the offences charged with.

9. File be consigned to Record Room. Digitally signed by SUMEDH SUMEDH KUMAR SETHI Announced in open Court on 16.05.2019.

                                                    KUMAR             Date:
                                                                      2019.05.16
                                                    SETHI             17:17:55
                                                                      +0530
                                     (Dr. SUMEDH KUMAR SETHI)
                                 CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE
                             SOUTH WEST DISTRICT, DWARKA COURTS
                                           NEW DELHI.




State v. Ekta Bharti and Ors.
FIR No. 118/14 P.S.: Dwarka North                                Page 6 of 6