Delhi District Court
Subodh Kumar vs Prashant Pundhir on 4 August, 2022
IN THE COURT OF SHRI ANIL KUMAR
ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE - 03 : SOUTH DISTRICT
SAKET COURT : NEW DELHI
Cr Rev No. 241/21
CNR no. DLST -01009894-2021
Subodh Kumar
S/o Kesri Singh,
R/o D-335, Krishna park,
Deoli Road, New Delhi
.....Revisionists
Versus
1. Prashant Pundhir
S/o Vinod Pundhir
2. Anshu Pundhir
W/o Prashant Pundhir
Both residents of
H.No.238/2, Panchnagari, Aligarh, UP.(Performa Party)
3. The State (NCT of Delhi)
... Respondents
Date of Institution : 15.12.2021
Date of Arguments : 04.08.2022
Date of judgment : 04.08.2022
CA No.241/21
Subodh Kumar Vs. Prashant Pundhir & Ors Page no. 1 of 7
JUDGMENT
1. Present criminal revision is filed under Section 397 read with 400 of Criminal Procedure Code against the order dated 01.12.2020 passed by Ld.MM whereby complaint u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C was dismissed.
2.1 Brief facts of the case, as set up in the revision, are that revisionist received a friend request from respondent No.2, on his Facebook ID on 25/06/2018 and revisionist accepted it. The Revisionist came to know later that it was the girl with whom his marriage talks were taken place but could not be materialized as she was in love with other person. The respondent no. 2 asked revisionist's whatsapp number. The respondent no. 2 had said that she would block the facebook.
2.2 Revisionist gave her his mobile number and they started talking casually on WhatsApp and gradually friendship developed between the Revisionist and Respondent no.2. Respondent no.2 during the talks said that she was having feelings for the Revisionist.
2.3 After sometime respondent no. 2 asked the revisionist for monetary help on pretext that her husband's (Respondent No.1) business had loss and she had to help him urgently. The Respondent No.2 gave her account no. 20134733049 (SBI, Aligarh) to Revisionist and revisionist transferred Rs. 50,000/- through IMPS on 25/12/2018 and Rs.50,000/- on 04.01.2019 through online banking from his account no. 30322693654 SBI Bank. Apart of the aforesaid amount the Revisionist had transferred Rs. 10,000 in the CA No.241/21 Subodh Kumar Vs. Prashant Pundhir & Ors Page no. 2 of 7 account of one Aditya on asking of Respondent-Anshu Pundhir on 13.11.2018. She promised to return the aforesaid amount in February after arranging from her kitty (committee). The Respondent no.2 had told the Revisionist not to tell about it to her husband. However, she did not return the money.
2.4 Respondent no.2 later came Delhi in May 2019 to pursue carrier in hospitality sector and took admission in Frankfinn Air hostess Institute, South Extn., Delhi. She asked Rs. 21,000/- from Revisionist on pretext of paying her fees. The revisionist gave her 21 thousand on 27/05/2019 through credit card for her fees in the Frankfinn Air hostess Institute, South Extn., New Delhi. Respondent no.2 later started saying that her husband was not supporting her in pursuing carrier and stopped paying daily expenses. Respondent no.2 used to ask him for money for her daily needs which revisionist had given her time to time between May-June 2019. On 16/06/2019 Respondent no. 2 asked Revisionist to give Rs. One Lakh. She stated that her husband was asking to return the jewelry that he had given to her in their wedding anniversary. Revisionist was not in position to give such a huge amount. Respondent no.2 pursued him and even asked him to borrow from friends. Revisionist considering it a genuine and immediate problem, got ready to help the Respondent no.2 but he was having only Rs. 50,000/. Revisionist called her in his office at Jhandewalan, Delhi to collect money (Rs.50,000/-) on 26/06/2019. Revisionist came near Jhandewalan Metro Station and gave her Rs. 50,000/-. On 28/06/2019 the Respondent no.2 called continuously and asked for the remaining Rs. 50,000/- . Revisionist suspected foul play therefore, refused to give Rs.50,000/- and also asked her to return his laptop.
CA No.241/21Subodh Kumar Vs. Prashant Pundhir & Ors Page no. 3 of 7 2.5 On the same evening Respondent no.2 returned laptop to the Revisionist, who after returning home opened the laptop and found WhatsApp chat of Revisionist was left open therein. The Revisionist curiously read the chat which shocked him. The Respondent no.2 and her husband (Respondent No. I) were talking and discussing about the revisionist money and how the money could be taken from the revisionist. From the WhatsApp chat, it was clear that Respondent-Anshu conspiring with her husband, befriended with the Revisionist under the scheme and design to cheat him. The Respondent no.2 conspiring with her husband (respondent no. I) duped him of Rs. 2,91,000/- collectively.
2.6 Revisionist talked to Respondent no.2 and demanded to return his money. Revisionist lodged a complaint in the concerned police station. Revisionist requested IO to verify CCTV footage as evidence from metro station and HDFC bank Jhandewalan but he did not take any steps. Revisionist being aggrieved of inaction of respondent no.3 complained to DCP concerned vide complaint dated 16/08/2019.
3. Revisionists filed an application u/s. 156(3) Cr.P.C seeking police investigation.
4. Vide order dt 1.12.2020 Ld.MM dismissed the application filed by revisionist u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C.
5. Being aggrieved by impugned order dt.1.12.2020 revisionist preferred the present revision petition.
CA No.241/21Subodh Kumar Vs. Prashant Pundhir & Ors Page no. 4 of 7
6. Ld. Counsel for revisionists has submitted that orders passed by the Ld ,MM is bad in law and against the scheme of criminal law which confers duty on police to investigate cognizable offence. Ld. MM errored in taking note of the allegations in entirety which make out a cognizable case conducive to police investigation. Nature of allegation and the surrounding circumstances are such that police investigation is necessary. Revisionist is not in position to adduce evidence on his own. Ld. MM error for not taking notice of serious allegation where the victim was honey trapped under a conspiracy and cheated huge amount from him. Ld. MM did not remain vigilant . of the offences, seriousness of the same, the manner of commission of offence and nature, value and possession of evidence and effort to procure, secure and assure the same. Ld MM has been passed without appreciating the facts and gravity of the case and without appreciating the settled position of law, hence the same is not sustainable and needs to be set aside. Impugned order is against the law, the facts of the case and evidence on record and is liable to be set aside.
7. It is submitted by Ld.APP/respondent no.3 that there is no irregularity in the impugned order, hence, this revision is liable to be dismissed.
8. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the respective submissions of Ld.Counsel for revisionist and Ld.APP for State/respondent no.3.
CA No.241/21Subodh Kumar Vs. Prashant Pundhir & Ors Page no. 5 of 7
9. Ld.Trial Court dismissed the application filed by the revisionist u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C observing that "Heard. It is to observe that the record of the payment made by the complainant can be certainly produced at his own. Again he had also produced the record of whatsapp chat between the respondent no. 1 & 2. The other allegation of the complainant can be certainly established at his own statement. Accordingly, matter can be pursued by the complainant at his own and there is no requirement of any detailed investigation by the police. Therefore, I do not find any requirement for lodging of FIR and for investigation by the police in the present case.
In this regard, reliance is placed upon authority of "M/s Skipper Beverages Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State 2002 Crl. LJ NOC 333 (Delhi), it has been held that, "It is true that Section 156 (3) of the Code empowers to a Magistrate to direct the police to register a case and initiative 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 order under Section 156 (3) of the Code. The discretion ought to be exercised after proper application of the mind and only in those cases where the Magistrate is of the view that the nature of allegations is such that the complainant himself may not be in position to collect and produce evidence before the Court and interests of justice demand that the police should step into held the complaint".
Accordingly, in view of aforesaid discussion, I am of the view that it is not a fit case to allow the application u/s 156 (3) CrPC. Same is hereby dismissed. Case is registered as a complaint case and cognizance is taken on the basis of complaint and opportunity is granted to the complainant to prove his case by way of PSE.
CA No.241/21Subodh Kumar Vs. Prashant Pundhir & Ors Page no. 6 of 7
10. By way of present revision petition, revisionist has challenged the impugned order dt 01.12.2020. In the present case I find that allegations made in present petition or the complaint filed before Ld.Magistrate, does not make out a case for indulgence of police. Revisionist has allegedly given amount of Rs.2.91 lac to respondent at his own risk despite knowing her very well.
11. As such, I do not find any infirmity or irregularity in the finding of Ld.Trial Court that there is no ground to exercise jurisdiction u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. In the facts and circumstances of case indulgence of police in the matter is not required.
Revision petition is dismissed.
Revision file be consigned to record room.
Copy of this order be sent to Ld.trial court.
Digitally signedANIL by ANIL KUMAR Date: Announced in open Court on 04.08.2022. KUMAR 2022.08.06 10:38:43 +0530 (Anil Kumar) Addl. Sessions Judge-03(South) Saket Courts/New Delhi/ 4.8.22 CA No.241/21 Subodh Kumar Vs. Prashant Pundhir & Ors Page no. 7 of 7