Delhi District Court
Smt. Savita Vashishth vs Sh. Tarun Datt Parashar on 13 September, 2012
IN THE COURT OF SH. V.K YADAV, ASJ-02 (NORTH),
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
CR No. 17/12
Smt. Savita Vashishth
W/o Tarun Datt Parashar
D/o Anand Saropp Vashishth
R/o B-24A, Ground floor,
Sawan Park, Ashok Vihar Phase-III
Delhi-110052 ... Revisionist
Versus
1. Sh. Tarun Datt Parashar
S/o late Sh. G.D. Sharma
R/o Flat No.15, Pocket 11-B
Sector 23, Rohini, Delhi-85
2. State Bank of India
Through its Branch Manager
Tis Hazari Branch,
Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi-54 ... Respondent
Date of institution : 17.04.2012
Date of arguments : 22.08.2012
Date of decision : 13.09.2012
JUDGMENT
How one of the most beautiful relations in this world turns into one of the most ugliest can be seen in a marital relationship between the two individuals. The marriage, considered to be relations spanning for more than one life as per the Hindu beliefs besides the backbone of the human civilization, the institution of marriage and the family transform into society, nation and civilization gives cohesiveness and stability to life. Undoubtedly, the marriage is very beautiful relation but then it something goes wrong it turn out to be one of the most devastating. The parties who vowed to stand by each other through thick and thin rough and tumble, good time and bad time of life suddenly becomes such enemies CR NO. 17/12 Page 1 of 4 that they have no stone unturned to take revenge or let down the other partner. Such are the shades and magnitude of good things and bad things which are unfathomable of one relations.
2. In the instant case, the marriage between the revisionist and the respondent no.1 took place before 2000 and couple was blessed with a daughter. However, the parties could not remain with each other as a result of which the revisionist herein started living separately since 9.6.2007. As obvious fall out of the marriage and the relations going sour in various litigations between the parties surfaced. One such case was for the grant of maintenance which was granted by the concerned court to the tune of Rs.2500/- per month to the revisionist herein and Rs. 1500/- per month to the minor daughter through order dated 16.1.2010. A review application was filed on 27.7.2010 in respect of the aforesaid order whereby in para 10, the respondent no.1 gave details and particulars of transactions, specific amount, cheque number etc. for the last many years in respect of the bank account maintained by the revisionist with the respondent no.2 bank.
3. The revisionist felt offended and moved to the court invoking the Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. seeking therein registration of a FIR against the respondent no.1&2 for criminal breach of trust and theft of personal data of the revisionist. Ld. Trial Court, after obtaining the report from the local police and considering the matter, through the impugned order dated 7.2.2012, declined the request of the revisionist for registration of the FIR and instead directed the revisionist to lead pre-summoning evidence.
4. The revisionist has come before the court assailing the order of the Ld. Trial Court on the ground that despite their being sufficient material for registration of the FIR in respect of the cognizable offences and report of the police being there in support of the contentions of the revisionist, ld. Magistrate declined the request without any justification based upon the surmises and conjectures and without applying the mind on the facts of the case by not appreciating it in its correct perspective and context.
5. It is contended on behalf of the revisionist that bank has categorically CR NO. 17/12 Page 2 of 4 stated that personal data and details are not provided to anybody except the person concerned or in compliance of certain statutory requirements. This makes it clear that respondent no.1 has either hacked the account of the bank and/ or has connived with some officials of the bank in order to lay his hands on the personal account details of the revisionist. This in itself is enough to show that ingredients of cognizable offences are present and the ld. Magistrate should have ordered the registration of the FIR as it is the police only which can unearth the further details.
6. To supplement his arguments, ld. counsel for the revisionist has relied upon on the following judgments, B.V. Raghavaiah Choudhary & Ors. Vs. Station House Officer, CCS, DD Abdis Police Station & another 2004(2)ALD (Cri) 200, Shakuntala Devi Vs. State of UP and others 2012(1) ACR 843.
7. It is contended that in view of the legal and factual position, the impugned order dated 7.2.2012 is not only liable to be set aside but the direction is required to be given for registration of the FIR.
8. I have considered the submissions made by the ld. counsel for the revisionist and have gone thprough the record as well.
9. The basic grudge of the revisionist is that the respondent no.1 had placed certain facts before the court, which granted maintenance having potential to upset the earlier findings. It seems that she felt enraged and cheated as to how the respondent no.1 could have given the details of outstanding balance, deposit of cheques, with FDR details etc. which are personal date. sThe revisionist believe that the respondent no.1 had used some unauthorised means to lay his hands on the aforesaid information which falls into the scope and ambit of criminal breach of trust/ theft of valuable data and breach of privacy etc. Ld. Magistrate has declined the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. in the aforesaid circumstances and that seems to be appropriate inasmuch as no cognizable offence seems to have been made out from the aforesaid facts viz-a-viz the revisionist. If hacking was done by the respondent or anybody at the behest of the respondent, then, it is the bank which should feel aggrieved, which is not the case. The revisionist asserts that it was her personal information which was entrusted with the bank and by parting CR NO. 17/12 Page 3 of 4 with that information the bank has committed breach of trust, does not seems to be convincing for the reason that breach of trust requires entrustment first which has to be there in respect of a valuable property or security. So far as the property and valuable security is concerned, the same is intact and has not been misappropriated in any manner, therefore, the criminal breach of trust cannot be said to be attracted in the facts of the case. Above all, the relevant period of the transactions which is bone of the contention starts from March, 2007 and goes upto December, 2009 has a period during which the marriage was in subsistence and parties were living together. It is pertinent to mention here that revisionist and the respondent at one point time were married, living together, sharing all intimate personal details. According to the revisionist herself, she has started living separately from the respondent no.1 w.e.f. 9.6.2007, therefore, it can be atleast presumed that till June, 2007 that revisionist and respondent no.1 were sharing each and every thing which includes the bank details also. Thus, only certain transaction after that period are at the most be subject matter of the grudge. It is incidentally not the case of the revisionist that the information given by the respondent no.1 is incorrect. In any case, the criminal breach of trust is not there.
10. Against the backdrop of these facts and circumstances, the impugned order seems to be in consonance with the facts and circumstances whereby an opportunity has been given to the revisionist to lead evidence. Thus, everything has not been lost and if revisionist would be able to show sufficient evidence, then the matter can be further taken up for proper disposal. However, at this stage, it does not appears to be a case where cognizable offence has been disclosed, which may requires registration of the FIR. As such, the impugned order does not requires any interference and accordingly, the revision petition stands dismissed. TCR alongwith copy of this order be sent back to the ld. Trial Court. The revision file be consigned to record room.
Announced in open court (Vimal Kumar Yadav) on 13.09.2012 Addl. Sessions Judge-II (North)/ Delhi CR NO. 17/12 Page 4 of 4 CR No. 17/12 13.9.2012 Present : None.
Vide separate judgment announced, the revision petition is dismissed. TCR alongwith copy of this order be sent back to the ld. Trial Court. Revision file be consigned to record room.
Vimal Kumar Yadav
ASJ-02 (North)
13.09.2012
CR NO. 17/12 Page 5 of 4
CR NO. 17/11
24.08.2012
Present : None
Vide separate judgment dictated and announced, the revision filed by the revisionist is not sustainable and accordingly stand dismissed. TCR be sent back alongwith copy of the judgment and revision file be consigned to record room.
Vimal Kumar Yadav ASJ-02 (North) 24.08.2012 CR NO. 17/12 Page 6 of 4