Delhi District Court
R.S. Chauhan vs . Chatur Singh on 23 January, 2008
1
IN THE COURT OF SH. AJAY PANDEY
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE : DELHI
R.S. CHAUHAN VS. CHATUR SINGH
COMPLAINT CASE NO. 87/1
P.S. KASMERE GATE
U/S 467/468 IPC
ORDER
Present: Complainant with Shri Banarasi Lal Advocate Accused on bail I have heard arguments on charge and have also perused evidence and material on record.
I am not satisfied with the submissions of the accused that he is entitled for discharge as the complainant has no locus-standi to file the present case. In view of the ratio laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in M.M.T.C. Ltd. Vs. Medchal Chemicals and Farma Ltd. AIR 2002 Supreme Court 182 wherein the Apex Court held that anyone can set the criminal law in motion by filing a complaint of facts constituting the offence before a Magistrate entitled to take cognizance. Therefore the question of locus-standi is irrelevant so far as the present criminal proceedings are concerned.
I am however not satisfied with the submissions of Ld. Shri Banarasi Lal that sufficient material and evidence has been brought on record by the complainant to frame charge against accused.
It has been rightly submitted on behalf of the accused that the material and evidence brought on record by the complainant is not 2 sufficient to lead to conviction of accused even if the same remains unrebutted through the course of trial.
Complainant has examined three witnesses as CW1, CW2 & CW3 in pre charge evidence. Ld. Shri Banarasi Lal submits that the charge u/s 464/471/420 IPC be framed against the accused as accused has forged a document Ex.CW3/B. This document is a letter purportedly written by accused addressed to MCD for and on behalf of Munirka Budh Vihar Trust for change of name of the society, Budhist Society of India as Munirka Budh Vihar Trust.
Shri Banarasi Lal has submitted that on the date of writing this letter no society in the name of Munirka Budh Vihar Trust was in existence. He further submits that in fact the said society was registered only on 31.3.1986 whereas the request for mutation was made on 20.1.1986.
It appears that dispute between the parties is more of a civil nature and the criminal proceedings against either of the parties in the present case is not appropriate remedy.
Complainant states himself to be the President of local branch of Budhist Society of India Ltd. as it was the statement of complainant in pre charge evidence recorded on 26.4.2003 he has stated that he became President in the elections held in the year 1997. He further stated that as per the constitution of society the elections of the society are required to be held every year but there is nothing in his statement that some such election took place after the 3 year 1977 and he was elected President in the said election also.
CW3 Mr. Subhash Chand Saini has stated that the accused Chatur Singh moved an application for change of name of Budhist Society of India Ltd. to Munirka Budh Vihar Trust. The said application is Ex.CW3/B. He also stated that the applicant also filed the minutes of meeting signed by as many as 74 persons in support of his application for change of name of the society. The said letter bearing the alleged signature of 74 persons is Ex.CW3/C. On the basis of the said application for change of name of society the name of the society was changed by MCD to Munirka Baudh Vihar Trust.
It is admitted by the complainant witnesses that one Mr. Ashok Mukundrao Ambedkar was the Chairman of the Budhist Society of India Registered. According to complainant accused got a document issued from the said Ashok Mukundrao Ambedkar copy of which is Ex.CW2/D. A perusal of the document reveals that by this document the complainant MR. R.S. Gautam has no concern with the institution namely the Budhist Society of India and the local branch No. 4 of the Budhist Society of India was being abolished. This document further reflects that Ashok Mukundrao Ambedkar in the capacity of President/Chairman of Budhist Society of India was approving the dissolution of Branch No. 4 which is admitted to be the local branch in dispute at Munirka Delhi Mr. Ashok Mukundrao Ambedkar was further approving deformation of constitution of 4 Munirka Baudh Vihar Trust and it is direct affiliation with the Head Office of Budhist Society of India at Bombay.
In the cross examination on behalf of the accused the complainant has himself admitted that there is a dispute between one Mrs. Meera Tai Ambedkar and Shri Ashok Mukundrao Ambedkar regarding the ownership/Chairmanship of the Budhist Society of India and the legal proceedings about their respective claims on the society are pending.
The complainant has brought no positive evidence on record to show that this document Ex.CW2/D was not issued by Mr. Ashok Mukundrao Ambedkar or that the authority as purported to be revoked against Mr. R.S. Gautam or granted in favour of Munirka Budh Vihar Trust was not intended to be implemented.
It has been rightly submitted on behalf of the accused that when there is a dispute between the two alleged Chairman of the Society i.e. Mr. Ashok Mukundrao Ambedkar and Mrs. Meera Tai Ambedkar and when the complainant himself admits that Mr. Ashok Mukundrao Ambedkar was also a Chairman of the society. The acts of the accused to move the application for registration of Munirka Budh Vihar Trust or for mutation before the MCD etc. cannot be said to be an act of dishonest intention.
According to the letter Ex.CW2/D which is not alleged as forged or manufactured by either of the parties the complainant branch of Budhist Society of India was abolished and the Chairman 5 Mr. Ashok Mukundrao Ambedkar approved formation of Munirka Budh Vihar Trust, the accused believing the said Mr. Ashok Mukundrao Ambedkar as Chairman of the Budhist Society of India only purported to act according to the intentions expressed in letter Ex.CW2/D. In this respect I am not even satisfied by the arguments of Shri Banarasi Lal that by merely moving the application for mutation in its name even before the formation of Munirka Budh Vihar Trust makes the accused liable for offence u/s 464 or Section 471 or Section 420 IPC.
Dishonest intention of the accused is a sine-qua non for either of these offences. Considering the purport of letter Ex.CW2/D no dishonest intention on the part of accused can be positively inferred.
It appears that there are two groups in the Budhist Society of India or at least in the local Branch No. 4 of Budhist Society of India at Munirka. There are disputes in the management of the said Branch No. 4 of the Budhist Society of India at Munirka. The local institution is affiliated with the Budhist Society of India having its registered office at Bombay. In the original society at Bombay also there appears to be some dispute between Mr. Ashok Mukundrao Ambedkar and Mrs. Mira Tai Ambedkar and both of them claim themselves to be the Chairman/President of the original society i.e. the Budhist Society of India. The complainant, according to his 6 statement, himself do not appear to be sure about the authority of one of these two Chairmans. In such circumstances, the acts of the accused purported to be done in furtherance of the intention expressed in document Ex.CW2/D cannot be said to be dishonest. The mere gap of two days in moving the application for mutation before the MCD and subsequent application for change of name of society is not sufficient to show that the intention of accused was dishonest.
In the facts and circumstances, I am of the opinion that the dispute between the parties is more of a civil nature which should be adjudicated only by a civil court and there is no sufficient material on the record which if remain unrebutted would lead to the conviction of the accused for either of the offences u/s 464/471/420 IPC. Accordingly, I discharge the accused from all the offences. File be consigned to record room.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 23rd DAY OF JANUARY , 2008 (AJAY PANDEY) METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE DELHI.