Delhi District Court
Beverages Pvt. Ltd. vs . State, Cited As 2001 Iv Ad (Delhi), on 1 April, 2016
DEEPAK CHABBRA V. PREM PRAKASH AND OTHERS
CC No. 3/1/16
PS Moti Nagar
01.04.2016
Present : None.
1.Brief facts of the case are that the complainant had purchased a property bearing no. WZ-408A, admeasuring 210 sq. yards, out of total area of 350 sq yards from accused no. 1 on 11.01.1999 by way of an agreement to sell, affidavit and receipt. Thereafter, in February 1999 the accused persons approached the complainant and requested him to rent out the said property to them as that address was in circulation in their export business. Accordingly, the complainant let out the property to the accused persons on monthly rent of Rs. 3,500/-. The rent gradually increased and last time the rent was paid by the accused persons for three months amounting to Rs. 45,000/- uptil December, 2012. It is stated that in the year 2013, accused persons did not pay rent despite various requests and reminders by the complainant. On 20.06.2014 accused persons have negotiated with the complainant and agreed to pay rent of Rs. 18,000/- per month from January 2015 onwards, however, no rent was paid by them. In the last week of June 2015 complainant again communicated the accused persons but the accused persons did not respond. The complainant was surprised by the indifferent attitude and the approach of the accused persons and he himself visited at the said property and to his utter surprise he found that the accused persons have not only altered the property but have made the construction upto five floors including the parking and all the floors were inhabited and occupied. It is stated that due to the fear of the accused persons complainant had not taken any action CC no. 3/1/16 PS Moti Nagar Page 1 of 5 against them. It is also stated that accused persons also got signatures of the complainant on certain blank papers after pressurizing him. In the meantime, the complainant inquired about the details and antecedents of the said property and came to know that the occupants and inhabitants in the said property are not the relatives or tenants of the accused persons but the accused persons have sold the floors illegally by fabricating documents. On these facts, it is argued that accused persons have committed offence u/s 420/467/468/471/506/120B IPC. It is stated that various complaints were made to the police officials, however, no action was taken.
2. Ld. Counsel for he complainant relied upon number of cases decided by the Hon'ble Higher Courts which are as follows:
a. Jagmohan v. Commissioner of Police 2007 (1) AD Delhi 117, b. Dinesh Kumar v. State 2006 (132) DLT 465, c. Abhay Nath Dubey v. State of Delhi and others 2002(VI) AD Delhi 528, d. Kuldeep Singh v. State 1994 Cr.L.J. 2502, e. Bishamber Dayal Yadav v. State 2007 (4 JCC) 2584, f. Priya Gupta v. State 2007(5) AD Delhi 707, g. Laxminarayan Gupta v. State 2006(130) DLT 490, h. Sanjeev Kumar v. Commissioner of Police 2002 III AD 92, i. Sonu v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi 2007 (144) DLT 628, j. Neelu Gupta v. State 2006(2) JCC 864, k. Satish Kumar Goel v. State and others 2000 II AD Delhi 841.
3. Reply was sought from the SHO concerned wherein it is stated that matter appears to be a mere breach of contract or agreement to sell, hence is a matter of civil nature. Thus, no police action was taken and no FIR has been registered.
4. The undersigned has heard arguments adduced on behalf of the complainant, perused the entire case file and the case relied upon by the CC no. 3/1/16 PS Moti Nagar Page 2 of 5 complainant.
5. It is settled law that U/s 156 (3) Code of Criminal Procedure, a magistrate has power to direct the police to register a case and investigate the matter, but this power is to be exercised judiciously and not in a technical manner. In the matters where the complainant has in his possession all the evidence required to prove his allegations, there should be no need to pass an order U/s 156 Code of Criminal Procedure. In this regard, reliance is placed on the decision of our own Hon'ble High Court in M/s. SKIPPER BEVERAGES PVT. LTD. Vs. STATE, Cited as 2001 IV AD (Delhi), wherein it has been held as under:
"It is true that Section 156(3) of the Code empowers to Magistrate to direct the police to register a case and initiate investigation but his 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. This 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 interest of justice demand that the police should step in the help the complainant".
6. In Indian Oil Corpn. v. NEPC India Ltd. (2006) 6 SCC736, it was observed by Hon'ble Supreme Court:-
"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, CC no. 3/1/16 PS Moti Nagar Page 3 of 5 which do not involve any criminal offence, by applying pressure through criminal prosecution should be deprecated and discouraged".
7. Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has laid down guidelines to decide applications u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. in a case titled as Priyanka Srivastava and Another v. State of U.P. and Others (CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.781 OF 2012 ) DOD. 19.03.15, wherein it was held:-
"26. At this stage it is seemly to state that power under Section 156(3) warrants application of judicial mind. A court of law is involved. It is not the police taking steps at the stage of Section 154 of the code. A litigant at his own whim cannot invoke the authority of the Magistrate. A principled and really grieved citizen with clean hands must have free access to invoke the said power. It protects the citizens but when pervert litigations takes this route to harass their fellows citizens, efforts are to be made to scuttle and curb the same.
8. To hold a person guilty of cheating, it is necessary to show that he had fraudulent and dishonest intention at the time of making the promise. From his mere failure to keep up the promise subsequently, a culpable intention right at the beginning, that is, when he made the promise cannot be presumed (reliance being placed on the judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court titled as "Subhkaran Laharuka & Anr. Vs. State & Anr"). Thus the element of mensrea is totally missing in the present case. It is also not believable that from February 1999 till June 2015 that is for more than sixteen years complainant never went to see the condition of his property.
9. The dispute appears to be civil in nature. All the evidences are in the reach of complainant. From the facts of the case, the undersigned is of the opinion that the assistance of investigating agency is not required in the present case for the collection of evidence. The facts and circumstances of the present case are such that the complainant is in possession of entire evidence, further he can summon the witnesses. Thus it does not CC no. 3/1/16 PS Moti Nagar Page 4 of 5 appear to be a case where the police assistance is required for the purpose of collection of evidence. Further if in future any need would arise police assistance can be taken U/s 202 Cr.P.C. None of the evidence in the present case is beyond the reach of the complainant. Accordingly, the present application u/s 156 (3) of Code of Criminal is dismissed. In the facts of the present case, the undersigned deem it appropriate that the complainant be directed to prove the allegations made by him on the oath.
10. Therefore, the undersigned takes cognizance of the complaint and complainant is called upon to bring pre-summoning evidence on 08.06.2016.
(GAJENDER SINGH NAGAR) MM-04:West:THC:Delhi 01.04.2016 CC no. 3/1/16 PS Moti Nagar Page 5 of 5