Delhi District Court
Puneet Kumar vs Ravinder Singh on 29 October, 2022
IN THE COURT OF SH. SONU AGNIHOTRI
ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE03
SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI
Criminal Revision No. 358/2019
CNR No. DLSE010042812019
PUNEET KUMAR
S/o Sh. A. R. Pradeep
R/o 1420, Rani Bagh,
New Delhi110034.
.... Petitioner
VERSUS
1. RAVINDER SINGH
S/o Sh. Maneet Singh
R/o 107/34A, East Azad Nagar,
Krishna Nagar,
Delhi.
2. ARVIND KUMAR SINGH
S/o Sh. Chotey Singh
R/o House No. 11, Street No. 5,
Mithapur Extension,
Lakhpat ColonyII,
Badarpur, New Delhi.
.... Respondents
CR No. 358/2019
Puneet Kumar Vs. Ravinder Singh and Anr. Page no....1 of 15
Date of institution : 07.06.2019
Date of reserving the order : 02.07.2022
Date of pronouncement : 29.10.2022
JUDGMENT
1. This is criminal revision u/s 397 R/W Section 399 of Code of Criminal Procedure preferred by complainant/petitioner against impugned order dated 03.12.2018 passed by Court of Sh. Harun Pratap, the then Ld. MM04, SouthEast District whereby both the accused / respondents were discharged of the offences u/s 420/467/468/34 IPC.
2. It is stated in the revision petition that petitioner and respondents are partners in a firm known as Om Fashions at D 7/3 Okhla Industrial Area, Phase2, New Delhi, vide Partnership Deed dated 21.06.2003 duly executed between petitioner and respondents alongwith one Harish Kumar S/o Sunder Singh R/o 921, Gali Jatwara, Darya Ganj, Delhi6.
3. It is stated that bank account of the partnership firm was CR No. 358/2019 Puneet Kumar Vs. Ravinder Singh and Anr. Page no....2 of 15 being operated by and under signatures of petitioner and respondent No. 1 and instructions in this regard were also given to the bank.
4. It is stated that petitioner was not actively participating into day to day affairs of partnership firm because of his family commitments and all decisions of promotion of partnership firm were being taken by respondents but all the bank dealing were to be operated under signatures of petitioner and respondent No.
1.
5. It is stated that on 18.02.2004, a cheque of Rs. 50,000/ was received by partnership firm from one of its client and the same was deposited in bank of partnership firm and same was credited in account of partnership firm.
6. It is stated that on 23.02.2004, petitioner came to know that an amount of Rs. 38,000/ was withdrawn from account of partnership firm without any signatures of petitioner and on inquiry, it was revealed that the said cheque only bore CR No. 358/2019 Puneet Kumar Vs. Ravinder Singh and Anr. Page no....3 of 15 signatures of petitioner.
7. It is stated that since petitioner has not signed any cheque of the said amount, petitioner immediately inquired from the banker of the partnership firm. It is stated that cheque No. 789994 was shown to petitioner by bank officials and to utter surprise of petitioner, petitioner was shocked to see that signatures of petitioner were forged by respondents No. 1 and 2.
8. It is stated that thereafter, petitioner tried to contact respondents but both avoided petitioner which confirmed suspicion of petitioner. Petitioner also contacted fourth partner Harish Kumar who also stated that respondents have not provided any information about the account of partnership firm.
9. It is stated that petitioner has strong suspicion that respondents in collusion with each other, with common intention have entered into a criminal conspiracy against petitioner while forging and fabricating signatures of petitioner on the cheque bearing No. 789994 and got encashed the same CR No. 358/2019 Puneet Kumar Vs. Ravinder Singh and Anr. Page no....4 of 15 for their personal use and thus committed offence of criminal breach of trust and other acts of forgery.
10. It is stated that it had also been revealed to petitioner that respondents have also opened another bank account in the name of partnership firm and the same is being operated by both of them without any intimation to petitioner and the other partner.
11. It is stated that petitioner led presummoning evidence before Ld. Trial Court and thereafter, Ld. Trial Court summoned respondents and after summoning of respondents, pre charge evidence was led by petitioner.
12. It is stated that during pendency of aforesaid complaint, petitioner himself examined as CW1, Sh. T. C. Bhardwaj (Bank official) as CW2 and one Ms. Deepa Verma as CW3, Senior Scientific Officer (Documents) Forensic Science Laboratory Delhi. All the witnesses deposed as per the parameters of complaint.
CR No. 358/2019 Puneet Kumar Vs. Ravinder Singh and Anr. Page no....5 of 15
13. It is stated that after complainant's evidence was closed, both the parties argued on the point of charge and thereafter, Ld. Trial Court discharged respondents vide impugned order dated 03.12.2018.
14. Following grounds have been taken by petitioner to challenge impugned order:
a) Because Ld. Trial Court has passed impugned order dated 03.12.2018 without appreciating facts and circumstances of the case and without following provisions of law.
b) Because impugned order of Ld. Trial Court is bad in the eyes of law because Ld. Trial Court has passed the order on the basis of account opening form brought on record by concerned Bank Manager vide Ex.CW1/4.
c) Because impugned order is totally bad in law because Ld. Trial Court has opined that as per the said account opening form anyone i.e. petitioner and respondent No. 1 was authorized to operate the bank account on behalf of the said firm. CR No. 358/2019 Puneet Kumar Vs. Ravinder Singh and Anr. Page no....6 of 15
d) Because impugned order is erred because case of petitioner was that respondent No. 1 in connivance with respondent No. 2 has forged and fabricated signatures of petitioner on cheque No. 789994 and withdrew amount of Rs. 38,000/ from bank account of partnership firm without any intimation and information to petitioner.
e) Because impugned order failed to appreciate that petitioner has got examined forensic expert Ms. Deepa Verma in this regard and she has opined that signatures on questioned cheque are different from the signatures marked A1 to A10.
f) Because impugned order failed to appreciate that petitioner has examined himself as CW1 and stated that he has not signed cheque in question.
g) Because impugned order failed to appreciate that on contentions of petitioner, Ld. Trial Court referred cheque in question to FSL Rohini and opinion was sought on cheque in question and same is against respondents.
CR No. 358/2019 Puneet Kumar Vs. Ravinder Singh and Anr. Page no....7 of 15
h) Because impugned order erred while discharging accused without appreciating the fact that amount of Rs. 38,000/ has been withdrawn from the bank of partnership firm under the forged signatures of petitioner.
i). Because impugned order failed to appreciate that respondents have not withdrawn amount under their own signatures rather the same was withdrawn under the signatures of petitioner which are forged and fabricated.
j) Because Ld. Trial Court passed impugned order without appreciating true facts of case and discharged respondents illegally.
15. It has been prayed to summon Trial Court Record and set aside impugned order dated 03.12.2018 and to direct Ld. Trial Court to frame charge against respondents, try and convict respondents as per provisions of law.
16. I have heard arguments addressed by counsel for respondents and perused record including Trial Court Record. CR No. 358/2019 Puneet Kumar Vs. Ravinder Singh and Anr. Page no....8 of 15 Petitioner was given liberty to address arguments on revision petition within 15 days from 02.07.2022 by mentioning matter orally. On 01.08.2022 i.e. date fixed for judgment on revision petition after 02.07.2022, proxy counsel for petitioner appeared and submitted that counsel for petitioner shall address arguments on revision petition by 25.08.2022 by mentioning the matter. Matter was thereafter adjourned to 02.09.2022 for judgment in view of the same. On 02.09.2022, court was on training and matter was adjourned to 26.09.2022. On 26.09.2022, an application seeking withdrawal of Vakalatnama for petitioner was filed by proxy counsel for petitioner wherein it was mentioned that counsel for petitioner contacted and intimated petitioner regarding pendency and date of hearing in present case but that petitioner has not responded to counsel for petitioner despite the fact that his shop is about 10 meters away from office of counsel for petitioner. It was further mentioned that counsel for petitioner has no instructions despite various CR No. 358/2019 Puneet Kumar Vs. Ravinder Singh and Anr. Page no....9 of 15 reminders and hence, present application. The said application was allowed in view of contents of the same and counsel for petitioner was discharged.
17. Case of petitioner in brief is that he came to know that amount of Rs. 38,000/ has been withdrawn from bank account of partnership firm wherein petitioner, respondents and one Harish Kumar were partners by way of cheque which was not signed by petitioner. Petitioner on an inquiry from bank officials came to know that the said cheque was signed by petitioner only and on seeing the cheque bearing No. 789994, petitioner came to know that his signatures on the said cheque were forged. Thereafter, petitioner tried to contact other partners but respondents started avoiding petitioner and fourth partner Harish Kumar endorsed that respondents were not divulging any information.
18. Petitioner examined himself as CW1 in Pre Charge Evidence and examined Mr. T. C. Bhardwaj, Deputy Manager CR No. 358/2019 Puneet Kumar Vs. Ravinder Singh and Anr. Page no....10 of 15 in PNB as CW2 and Ms. Deepa Verma, Deputy Director, FSL as CW3.
19. Respondents were summoned interalia for offence U/sec 420/34 IPC.
20. Ld. Trial Court in impugned order observed that not even a single allegation was made against respondent No. 2 by petitioner in complaint filed by him or during his evidence. It further observed that petitioner merely stated that the said respondent avoided him on one pretext or another and there is not even an iota of allegations about commission of any criminal offence by respondent No. 2 in connivance with respondent No. 1. Ld. Trial Court further observed that petitioner did not contend that the said partnership firm was registered nor any registered partnership deed was brought on record during entire evidence. Ld. Trial Court further observed that neither it has been alleged by petitioner that respondents induced or deceived him in any manner since beginning of their CR No. 358/2019 Puneet Kumar Vs. Ravinder Singh and Anr. Page no....11 of 15 dealings nor any such material has been brought on record by petitioner to show that he delivered any property or valuable security at any point of time. It further observed that in absence of any such pleading, contention and evidence on record to show a prima facie case for offence U/sec 420 IPC, no ground is made out to charge any of respondents with the said offence.
21. Ld. Trial Court in impugned order observed that sole allegation borne out of record is that signature of petitioner on cheque in question have been forged and fabricated to withdraw money from account of partnership firm. It observed that petitioner in this regard placed reliance on report of handwriting expert CW3 who stated that disputed signature on cheque in question have not been signed or affixed by same person whose admitted signatures were on affidavit filed alongwith the complaint and application U/sec 156 (3) Cr. P. C. It observed that the said report was highly disputed by respondents. It further observed that even if the said report is accepted to be CR No. 358/2019 Puneet Kumar Vs. Ravinder Singh and Anr. Page no....12 of 15 correct, the fact remains that the said report nowhere states that disputed signatures to have been affixed by respondents in their handwriting. It further observed that the said report is silent as to who is author of disputed signatures. It observed that petitioner neither alleged that disputed signatures have been annexed by any of respondents specifically nor steps were taken by petitioner to determine their authorship during the entire proceedings.
22. Ld. Trial Court further observed that contention of petitioner that account of partnership firm was to be operated jointly under signatures of petitioner and respondent No. 1 is negated by copy of account opening form wherein it is specifically mentioned that any of the partner was authorized to sign cheques or other orders. It further observed that petitioner as well as concerned Bank Manager deposed that cheque in question was encashed according to rule and payment regarding cheque in question was made from the branch when it was CR No. 358/2019 Puneet Kumar Vs. Ravinder Singh and Anr. Page no....13 of 15 found in order. Ld. Trial Court observed that in absence of any evidence about authorship of disputed signatures, court has no hesitation to arrive at finding that no prima facie case is made out against respondents for offences U/sec 467/468 IPC.
23. Ld. Trial Court therefore, discharged respondents of offences U/sec 420/467/468/34 IPC.
24. I do not find anything perverse in impugned order passed by Ld. Trial Court. One more thing Ld. Trial Court could have added in its reasoning that petitioner should have examined fourth partner Mr. Harish Kumar who could have corroborated version of petitioner but petitioner did not examine him coupled with the fact that cheque in question not only bore signatures of petitioner but also of respondent No. 1 and it has not been brought on record by petitioner as to who actually received the payment from encashment of cheque in question. In absence of any concrete evidence being brought on record by petitioner, I do not find any illegality or perversity in impugned order passed CR No. 358/2019 Puneet Kumar Vs. Ravinder Singh and Anr. Page no....14 of 15 by Ld. Trial Court. I am of the view that revision petition filed by petitioner is without merits and is accordingly dismissed.
25. Let copy of this judgment be sent to Ld. Trial Court alongwith TCR.
Dictated and Announced (Sonu Agnihotri)
in the open court ASJ03 (SouthEast),
on 29.10.2022 Saket Courts, Delhi
CR No. 358/2019
Puneet Kumar Vs. Ravinder Singh and Anr. Page no....15 of 15