Delhi District Court
Mohan Lal Gupta vs . State And Ors. on 31 March, 2011
Mohan Lal Gupta Vs. State and ors.
IN THE COURT OF SHRI AJAY KUMAR KUHAR
ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE02:SOUTH EAST
SAKET COURT: NEW DELHI
IN RE: Criminal Revision No. 81/10
ID No. 02403RO231972010
Mohan Lal Gupta
S/o Sh Jiya Lal
D50, Jawahar Park
New Delhi
Also at:
Shop No. 6, DDA Complex,
Near CLal Chowk,
Okhla, PhaseII, New Delhi
..... Revisionist
VERSUS
1. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)
2. Sh Radhey Shyam
E12, Jawahar Park,
New Delhi.
3. Sh B.D. Mittal
R/o Sector15, House No. 632,
Faridabad, Haryana
4. Sh Arun Mittal
S/o Sh B.D. Mittal,
R/o Sector15, House No. 632,
CR No. 81/10 1/6
Mohan Lal Gupta Vs. State and ors.
Faridabad, Haryana
5. Sh Sanjeev Mittal
S/o Sh B.D. Mittal,
R/o Sector15, House No. 632,
Faridabad, Haryana
..... Respondents.
_______________________________________________________________
Date of institution : 15.07.2010
Date when arguments
were heard : 30.03.2011
Date of Order : 31.03.2011
O R D E R
By this order I shall dispose of the Criminal Revision filed by the revisionist against the order dated 08.06.2010 whereby the application under section 156 (3) Cr. P.C of the revisionist herein was dismissed by the Ld. Magistrate in Criminal Complaint No. 2667/1 titled as Mohan Lal Gupta Vs. Radhey Shyam Mittal and ors.
2. Trial Court Record has been called. Arguments heard.
3. In nutshell, the case of the revisionist is that he was granted a license to run a liquor shop at shop No. 6, DDA Complex, Near CLal Chowk, Okhla PhaseII, New Delhi. He was induced by the respondents (namely Sh Radhey Shyam, Sh B.D. Mittal, Sh Arun Mittal and Sh Sanjeev Mittal) to handover the CR No. 81/10 2/6 Mohan Lal Gupta Vs. State and ors.
running of the liquor shop to them and also induced him to execute a Power of Attorney and sign some blank papers to facilitate the running of the shop by them. The respondents started running the liquor shop and for sometime it was running very smoothly but the revisionist realized that in between the month of March 2009 to August 2009 there was a significant decline in the sale at the shop and when he inquired the respondents about this decline they gave evasive reply and flimsy explanation. In July 2009 he visited the shop to check the accounts but he was abused and threatened by the respondents. On 14.08.2009, however, with the intervention of common friends and relatives he along with the respondents entered into some settlement as a result of which a dissolution deed was executed and the revisionist was informed that there was an outstanding liability of about Rs 23 lacs towards the supplier of the goods, however, when he took over the charge of the shop it came to his notice that the liability was around Rs 85 lacs only. In the background of these facts he moved an application under section 156 (3) Cr. P.C for the direction to the local police for registration of the case for the offence under section 420/467/468/471/477A/406/506/452/323/34 IPC read with section 120B IPC.
4. The Ld. Magistrate had declined to issue any direction under section 156 (3) Cr. P.C for the registration of the case. The reason which the Ld. Magistrate has given is that the revisionist herein had willingly signed the documents and allowed the respondents to run the business. The complainant was not able to show any offer or inducement given to him, therefore, his allegations that he was induced to handover the running of the shop was not substantiated. The Ld. Magistrate also observed that the dissolution deed was prepared and CR No. 81/10 3/6 Mohan Lal Gupta Vs. State and ors.
executed voluntarily and both the parties had entered into an agreement as per their convenience and only when the differences arose they have started leveling allegations. The Ld. Magistrate was also of the view that no custodial interrogation was required in the present case and the evidence was within the reach of the complainant.
5. Ld. Counsel for the revisionist, however, submitted that the respondents have also taken away the computer and the account books in which accounts was maintained. The Ld. Counsel submitted that the investigation can only be conducted by the police as complainant/revisionist herein cannot have access to those account books and the computers. During the arguments the court had put a query as to on what basis the revisionist has estimated the liability of Rs 85 lacs. Ld. Counsel for the revisionist submitted that the revisionist has no means to ascertain it. It appears that the figure of Rs 85 lacs mentioned in the complaint has no reasonable basis and even if it has some, it has not been brought before the court by the revisionist/complainant. Ld. Counsel submitted that the position of law is well settled that the Magistrate is bound to direct the registration of the FIR when the allegations disclose the commission of cognizable offence. Reliance had been placed on the judgments titled Suresh Chand Jain Vs. State of MP (2001) 2 SCC 628, Madhu Bala Vs. Suresh Kumar & Ors (1997) 8 SCC 476, Lalita Kumari Vs. Govt. of UP 2008 (7) SCC 164, AIIMS Employees Union Vs. Union of India and Ors. (1996) 11 SCC 582, Lallan Chaudhary & Ors. Vs. State of Bihar and Anr. AIR 2006 SC 3376, Ramesh Kumari Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and Ors. AIR 2006 SC 1332, Superintendent of Police, CBI Vs. CR No. 81/10 4/6 Mohan Lal Gupta Vs. State and ors.
Tapan Kumar Singh (2003) 6 SCC 175 and Roop Ram Vs. State of UP 2009 (5) ADJ 707.
These judgments were relied upon at the time of argument before the Trial Court and also relied upon in support of argument in this Court.
6. I have considered the submissions of the Ld. Counsel for the revisionist and also perused the judgments on which reliance has been placed.
7. In the case of Suresh Chand Jain Vs. State of MP (supra) the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that when the Magistrate proposes to take cognizance of the offence he need not order any investigation under section 156 (3) Cr. P.C. The Ld. Magistrate has taken steps to record the presummoning evidence, so there was no need for direction for registration of FIR. The submission of the Ld. Counsel that in case of cognizable offence the Magistrate is bound to direct the registration of the FIR under section 156 (3) Cr. P.C., is not legally sustainable. Whenever a Criminal Complaint filed or an application under section 156 (3) Cr. P.C is moved the Magistrate has to consider the requirements of the case. He cannot act mechanically and direct the registration of the FIR on the basis of the averments made in the complaint or in the application. The Magistrate has to apply mind judiciously keeping in view the requirement of the case and need for investigation. The judgment in case of M/s Skipper Biverages Vs. State 2001 IV AD (Delhi) 625 the gives a guideline to the court in which case the direction of registration of FIR under section 156 (3) Cr. P.C is justified. Any CR No. 81/10 5/6 Mohan Lal Gupta Vs. State and ors.
mechanical approach of issuing direction for registration of the FIR whenever a complaint is received with regard to the cognizable offence would lead to miscarriage of justice and the chances of misuse of the provision also cannot be ruled out. Considering these aspects the guidelines have been issued in the case of M/s Skipper Biverages Vs. State (supra).
8. Coming to the facts of the present case, the revisionist has a dispute with the respondents which is primarily of a civil nature but still the Ld. Magistrate had opted to give an opportunity to him to lead evidence under section 200 Cr. P.C. The reason behind this is that even in cases which are of civil nature sometimes the element of cheating can also be seen. Therefore, it was justified on the part of the Ld. Magistrate to give an opportunity to the revisionist to lead pre summoning evidence. There was no justification for direction under section 156 (3) Cr. P.C in this case. Therefore, the impugned order dated 08.06.2010 does not suffer from any illegality, irregularity or incorrectness. The revision petition against the impugned order dated 08.06.2010, therefore, stands dismissed. Copy of this order be sent to the Trial Court along with the Trial Court Record. Revision file be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in open court (AJAY KUMAR KUHAR)
Dated 31st March, 2011 Addl. Sessions Judge02: South East
Saket Court: New Delhi
CR No. 81/10 6/6