Delhi District Court
Pramod Goyal vs (1) The State on 15 January, 2022
IN THE COURT OF NAVEEN GUPTA,
ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE - 05, SHAHDARA DISTRICT
KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
CNR No. DLSH01-005536-2019
Criminal Revision No. 3/20
ID No. 216/19
PS Jafrabad
In the matter of:
Pramod Goyal
S/o Late Sh. Shyam Sunder Goyal,
R/o C-9/261, Yamuna Vihar,
Delhi-110053. .... Revisionist
Versus
(1) The State
Govt. of NCT of Delhi
(2) Shri Ravi Prakash Goyal
S/o Sh. Rajender Prasad Goyal,
Vice Principal/PGT,
Sandhya Senior Secondary Public School
(3) Smt. Sarita Goyal
W/o Shri Ravi Prakash Goyal
Manager of Sandhya Senior Secondary
Public School
Both at:
Sandhya Senior Secondary Public School
C-182/2, Gali Akhade Wali, Gali No. 1,
Chauhan Bangar, Delhi-110053.
Crl. Revision No.03/20 (I.D. No. 216/19) Pramod Goyal v. The State &Ors. Page 1 of 11
PS Jafrabad
NAVEEN Digitally signed by
GUPTA NAVEEN GUPTA
Also at:
A-75, Madhuban,
Preet Vihar, Delhi-110092. .... Respondents
Date of institution: 23.08.2019
Date of reserving order: 07.01.2022
Date of order: 15.01.2022
ORDER
1. Vide this order, the court has decided the revision petition filed by the revisionist Pramod Goyal, challenging the order dated 24.07.2019, passed by the Court of Ld. MM, Shahdara, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi, whereby the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. moved by the complainant (revisionist herein) seeking direction to the SHO PS Jafrabad to register an FIR against the accused persons/respondents No. 2 and 3 herein, has been dismissed.
2. Brief facts as depicted by the revisionist herein/complainant in his application moved under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., as narrated by Ld. Trial Court in the impugned order, are that 'the case of the complainant is that accused no. 1 [respondent No. 2 herein] is his cousin brother, accused no. 2 [who has expired] was the father of accused no. 1 and accused no. 3 [respondent No. 3 herein] is the wife of accused no. 1. The father of complainant Late Sh. S.S. Goyal had established two schools which are being run by societies namely Seth Bhagwan Dass Educational Society and Sandhya Educational Society. After the death of Sh. S.S. Goyal on 18.12.2011, accused Crl. Revision No.03/20 (I.D. No. 216/19) Pramod Goyal v. The State &Ors. Page 2 of 11 PS Jafrabad NAVEEN Digitally signed by GUPTA NAVEEN GUPTA no. 2 has been trying to grab the property of Sh. S.S. Goyal in collusion with other accomplices. However, these properties have devolved on the complainant and other LRs. Accordingly, there are certain litigations between the parties which are pending adjudication. All accused have manipulated the records of Sandhya Educational Society and taken possession of the school illegally. Further, vide application dated 29.08.2014 under RTI Act, complainant had sought various information regarding the educational qualifications and experience of the principal and vice principal of Sandhya Senior Secondary Public School and reply dated 30.09.2014 was received. The applicant had further sought information under RTI Act regarding educational qualification and experience of accused no. 1. It is the case of complainant that on the basis of the documents procured by him, it is clear that the accused have forged and fabricated documents and have committed fraud.'
3. Ld. Trial Court called for status report from the SHO concerned.
Consequently, a report dated 22.09.2017 was filed. Vide order dated 24.07.2019, Ld. Trial Court while relying upon the precedents Ravindra Kumar v. State, Crl. M.C 2240/2013 and Crl. M.A. 8696/2013 (Stay) decided on 03.09.2013 and Priyanka Srivastava v. State, decided on 19.03.2015, has observed that 'all the documents and evidence are in custody of the complainant and nothing is out of reach of complainant, which requires special investigation through police. The recourse of inquiry by police is also available under Crl. Revision No.03/20 (I.D. No. 216/19) Pramod Goyal v. The State &Ors. Page 3 of 11 PS Jafrabad NAVEEN Digitally signed by GUPTA NAVEEN GUPTA Section 202 Cr.P.C. Further, record shows that there are numerous litigations pending between the parties regarding the said schools'. Thus, Ld. Trial Court dismissed the application moved under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. Aggrieved from the abovesaid order, the revisionist/complainant has filed the present revision petition.
4. Arguments have been heard from Ld. Counsel for the revisionist and Ld. Counsel for respondents No. 2 and 3.
5. First of all, the Court wishes to examine the maintainability of the present revision petition challenging the order of Ld. Trial Court deciding the application moved under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.
6. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Simret Katyal v. The State Govt of NCT of Delhi, in Crl. M.C. No. 3729/2015 decided on 11.09.2015,has relied upon its earlier judgment while deciding the issue of maintainability of revision petition challenging an order under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. and held that:
13 [A]s far as the maintainability of the revision petition is concerned, this Court vide judgment dated 10.04.2013 delivered in Crl.M.C.No.1952/2009 and 1959/2009 in case titled Manohar Singh & Another vs State &Ors wherein after discussing all the relevant law on subject and while relying upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in case Amit Kapoor vs Ramesh Chander & Ors. 2012 IX AD (SC) 493 and Kishan Lal vs Dharmendra Bafna & Anr.
2009 (6) Scale 768 made the following observations:-
Crl. Revision No.03/20 (I.D. No. 216/19) Pramod Goyal v. The State &Ors. Page 4 of 11PS Jafrabad NAVEEN Digitally signed by GUPTA NAVEEN GUPTA
15. The basic challenge to the impugned order is on the ground of non-maintainability of the revision petition of respondent-accused, which stands allowed vide impugned order. Implicit reliance placed by petitioners' counsel upon full bench decision of Allahabad High Court in Father Thomas (supra) to contend that revision petition against an order allowing 156(3) Cr.P.C. is not maintainable, is of no avail for the reason that Apex Court in its recent decision in Amit Kapoor (supra) has authoritatively ruled that a criminal revision certainly lies against an intermediate order....
16. Now what is required to be seen is whether trial court order directing registration of FIR while exercising its power under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. is an interlocutory order or an intermediate order. No doubt in Father Thomas (supra), an order under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. has been held to be an interlocutory order being non-revisable, but Apex Court in Kishan Lal v. Dharmendra Bafna&Anr. 2009 (9) Scale 768 in respect of such an order, has ruled as under:-
"It is correct that the revisional court should not interfere with the discretionary jurisdiction exercised by the learned Magistrate unless a jurisdictional error or an error of law is noticed."
17. In view of authoritative pronouncement of Apex Court in Kishan Lal (supra), this Court is of the considered view that the order under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. is revisable and impugned order holding revision petition against it to be maintainable does not suffer from any illegality or perversity.
Crl. Revision No.03/20 (I.D. No. 216/19) Pramod Goyal v. The State &Ors. Page 5 of 11
PS Jafrabad
NAVEEN Digitally signed by
GUPTA NAVEEN GUPTA
7. From the above said precedent, it is clear that the present revision petition challenging the order of the Trial Court deciding the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. is maintainable.
8. Ld. Counsel for the revisionist has argued that first of all, Ld. Trial Court has wrongly observed that the complainant had not made any complaint to the DCP concerned separately. While it is pertinent to note that the complainant had annexed copy of complaint moved to DCP concerned, which was received on 20.05.2017. Initially, the complaint had been moved to SHO, PS Jafrabad on 10.05.2017. Further, on merits, the respondents No. 2 and 3 have illegally taken possession of Sandhya Senior Secondary Public School and further, illegally grabbed the Sandhya Education Society by manipulating its records. Further, respondent No. 2 herein had been made Vice Principal of Sandhya Senior Secondary Public School, while he was not eligible to be appointed as TGT and later on, PGT or to the post of Vice Principal. He does not possess genuine mark sheet and degree of B.Ed. Furthermore, he does not possess qualification of Master of Commerce. Ld. Trial Court has failed to appreciate that respondent No. 2 could not have done two courses i.e. B.Ed. and M.Com in the same year i.e. the year 2012-2013. Thus, it is clear that in collusion and in connivance with respondent No. 3, respondent No. 2 had been illegally withdrawing the salary and other benefits attached to the post of PGT and the Vice Principal. Further, the complainant cannot obtain the requisite record to prove the abovesaid Crl. Revision No.03/20 (I.D. No. 216/19) Pramod Goyal v. The State &Ors. Page 6 of 11 PS Jafrabad NAVEEN Digitally signed by GUPTA NAVEEN GUPTA allegations, thus, an FIR shall be registered to investigate into the commission of alleged offences.
9. Ld. Counsel for revisionist has relied upon following precedents in support of his arguments i.e. Ratanlal v. Prahlad Jat and Ors, AIR 2017 SC 5006, Maya Devi and Ors. v. The State and Anr., 2019 (264) DLT 431 and Paradise Credit P Ltd. &Ors. v. State of NCT of Delhi, Crl. M.C. No. 2936/2012 decided on 20.12.2013. Ld. Counsel has submitted written synopsis, too, through e-mail sent on 13.01.2022. The same has also been perused. Ld. Counsel for revisionist has further relied upon following precedent in support of his arguments i.e. M. Narayan Das v. State of Karnataka, AIR 2004 SC 555.
10. Ld. Counsel for respondents No. 2 and 3 has argued that the parties are engaged in several litigations, wherein the revisionist herein has levelled false allegations against the respondents. Even otherwise, the qualification of respondent No. 2, during inquiry conducted by DOE, has been found genuine. An affidavit to this effect was filed by Dy. Director of Education, Zone-V, District North East Delhi before Hon'ble Delhi High Court. Further, respondent No. 2 has already resigned from the service on 20.05.2017. Ld. Counsel has further led the Court through the documents furnished by the complainant alongwith his complaint to show that the respondent No. 2 possesses genuine qualification records. Further, the revisionist has not been Crl. Revision No.03/20 (I.D. No. 216/19) Pramod Goyal v. The State &Ors. Page 7 of 11 PS Jafrabad NAVEEN Digitally signed by GUPTA NAVEEN GUPTA able to make out any prima facie case of commission of offence of cheating and criminal breach of trust. Thus, present revision petition shall be dismissed.
11. Ld. Counsel for respondents No. 2 and 3 has relied upon following precedents in support of his arguments i.e. Uniplas India Limited v. State and Another, 2002 (62) DRJ 669 (DB), Robert John D'Souza and Others v. Stephen V. Gomes and Another, (2015) 9 SCC 96 and Randheer Singh v. The State of UP and Ors, Criminal Appeal No. 932 of 2021 decided on 02.09.2021. Ld. Counsel has submitted written synopsis, too, through e-mail sent on 14.01.2022 at 08.10 pm i.e. after court hours. The same has also been perused.
12. The documents annexed by the complainant with his complaint moved before Ld. Trial Court have been perused. One reply dated 20.08.2015 sent by Ms. Sarita Goyal to the Education Officer and Pramod Goyal is available on record, which states that Ravi Prakash Goyal/respondent No. 2 herein was not appointed as Vice Principal of the school. The present Principal Smt. Sandhyawati had already tendered her resignation and the Chairman and Manager of the Society had given the powers to administer the school to PGT Ravi Prakash Goyal, who can sign the documents of the school in the capacity of officiating Vice Principal till the final suitable arrangement is done from the Society. Further, an inquiry report dated 06.10.2015 of Principal, GBSSS, Brahampuri, Delhi is also Crl. Revision No.03/20 (I.D. No. 216/19) Pramod Goyal v. The State &Ors. Page 8 of 11 PS Jafrabad NAVEEN Digitally signed by NAVEEN GUPTA GUPTA available on record, which states that educational certificates of Ravi Prakash Goyal were verified online on the website of UGC and NCTE. It is clear that he had the required qualification for the post of PGT and also working as officiating Vice Principal.
13. Ld. Counsel for the respondents No. 2 and 3 has also annexed a counter affidavit of Dy. Director of Education, Zone-V, District North East Delhi filed before Hon'ble Delhi High Court, wherein it has been inter-alia stated that it was confirmed from UGC and NCTE websites, if the Mahatma Gandhi University, Meghalaya and Pacific Academic of Higher Education Research University, Udaipur were affiliated to UGC and NCTE respectively. Thereafter, both the mark sheets of M.Com in respect of R-6 (respondent No. 2 herein) were verified from the website printed on these mark sheets. On the basis of available documents in the school record, R-6 is eligible for the post of PGT.
14. From the abovesaid record, it is prima facie made out that respondent No. 2 is possessing requisite qualification for holding the post of PGT. The revisionist has not produced any document showing in what manner the respondents no. 2 and 3 have manipulated record of Sandhya Educational Society and further, have illegally taken possession of Sandhya Senior Secondary Public School.
Crl. Revision No.03/20 (I.D. No. 216/19) Pramod Goyal v. The State &Ors. Page 9 of 11
PS Jafrabad
NAVEEN Digitally signed by
GUPTA NAVEEN GUPTA
15. This Court stands guided by the precedent laid down by Hon'ble Delhi High Court held in Subhkaran Luharuka v. State, Crl.M.C. No. 6122-23/2005 dated 09.07.10, wherein the Court has held that:
52A. For the guidance of subordinate courts, the procedure to be followed while dealing with an application under Section 156(3) of the Code is summarized as under:
(iv) Of course, it is open to the Magistrate to proceed under Chapter XII of the Code when an application under Section 156(3) of the Code is also filed along with a Complaint under Section 200 of the Code if the Magistrate decides not to take cognizance of the Complaint. However, in that case, the Magistrate, before passing any order to proceed under Chapter XII, should not only satisfy himself about the pre-requisites as aforesaid, but, additionally, he should also be satisfied that it is necessary to direct Police investigation in the matter for collection of evidence which is neither in the possession of the complainant nor can be produced by the witnesses on being summoned by the Court at the instance of complainant, and the matter is such which calls for investigation by a State agency. The Magistrate must pass an order giving cogent reasons as to why he intends to proceed under Chapter XII instead of Chapter XV of the Code. [Emphasis supplied].
16. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the averments made in the application of the complainant/revisionist herein, the Court is of the view that the complainant/revisionist is in control of all the evidences required to be produced in support of his allegations and to prove the same. Even if the allegations of the Crl. Revision No.03/20 (I.D. No. 216/19) Pramod Goyal v. The State &Ors. Page 10 of 11 PS Jafrabad NAVEEN Digitally signed by GUPTA NAVEEN GUPTA complainant are accepted as true that respondent No. 2 does not possess genuine qualification making him eligible for the post of PGT or officiating Vice Principal, the allegations can be proved by him through oral and documentary evidence including by summoning the requisite record, as per applicable provisions of law. Similar is the observation regarding other allegations made by the complainant against the accused persons therein. Accordingly, there is no requirement of any investigation including custodial interrogation of accused persons by the police.
17. The Court is in agreement with the observations of Ld. Trial Court as mentioned hereinabove. Hence, this Court does not find any incorrectness, illegality or impropriety in the order of Ld. Trial Court dated 24.07.2019 dismissing the application moved under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. With utmost respect, this Court is of the view that the precedents relied upon by Ld. Counsel for the revisionist do not provide any favour to the revisionist. Accordingly, the present revision petition is dismissed.
Revision file be consigned to Record Room. Trial Court Record be sent back to the Ld. Trial Court alongwith a copy of this order.
NAVEEN
Announced through GUPTA
Digitally signed by
NAVEEN GUPTA
Cisco video-conferencing (Naveen Gupta)
on 15th day of January, 2022 Addl. Sessions Judge-05
Shahdara District,
Karkardooma Courts, Delhi
Crl. Revision No.03/20 (I.D. No. 216/19) Pramod Goyal v. The State &Ors. Page 11 of 11
PS Jafrabad