Delhi District Court
Sh. Shashikant Suman vs Rajeev Goel on 12 December, 2018
Criminal Revision No.196/2018
IN THE COURT OF SH. PULASTYA PRAMACHALA
SPECIAL JUDGE (PC ACT) CBI : EAST DISTRICT
KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
Criminal Revision No. : 196/2018
Under Section : 397 Cr.P.C.
CC No. : 4217/2017
PS : Gandhi Nagar
CNR No. : DLET01-006599-2018
In the matter of :-
SH. SHASHIKANT SUMAN
S/o. Sh. R.N. Poddar,
R/o. H.No.A-43, Sukhbir Nagar, Delhi-110081.
............PETITIONER
VERSUS
1. RAJEEV GOEL
2. SANJAY GOEL
Both Real Brothers and Directors/Partners of Shree Shyam Fashion
House, A unit of M.S.R. Communication.
O/o. 1465, Shambhunath Building,
Subhash Road, Gandhi Nagar, Delhi.
..........RESPONDENTS
Date of Institution : 27.09.2018
Date of reserving order : 04.12.2018
Date of pronouncement : 12.12.2018
Decision : Petition is dismissed.
ORDER
1. This revision petition is directed against order dated 09.08.2018, passed by the trial court in the complaint case titled as Shashikant Suman v. Rajeev Goel & Anr., bearing CC No.4217/2017, under Page 1 of 5 (Pulastya Pramachala) Special Judge (PC Act) CBI, East District Karkardooma Courts, Delhi Criminal Revision No.196/2018 Section 200 Cr.P.C. Vide impugned order, trial court dismissed application u/s 156 (3) Cr.P.C, which was moved by petitioner herein.
2. Briefly stated, the relevant facts giving rise to this revision petition are that petitioner herein Sh. Shashikant Suman filed a complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C along with an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C before trial court against accused Sh. Rajeev Goel and Sh. Sanjay Goel. In his complaint, complainant alleged that he had been working for accused persons against salary and on commission basis. He worked hard and turn over of business of accused persons were taken to new height. Thereafter, accused persons became greedy and withdrew their offer of giving commission on sales. Petitioner refused to work further with them and started working separately. Accused gave a post dated cheque to complainant to clear his dues, but same was dishonored. Accused also did not return digital signature of petitioner. Thereafter, he was threatened by the accused persons and thus, offences punishable under Sections 420/408/506/120B/ 34 IPC were committed.
3. After hearing arguments, trial court vide impugned order dismissed that application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.
GROUNDS :-
4. Being aggrieved of the impugned order, petitioner herein has filed this revision petition mainly on the following relevant grounds :-
● That trial court did not consider the facts that respondents in league with each other, committed fraud with petitioner. They badly terrorized the petitioner and also illegally detained digital signature as well as several documents relating to the firm opened Page 2 of 5 (Pulastya Pramachala) Special Judge (PC Act) CBI, East District Karkardooma Courts, Delhi Criminal Revision No.196/2018 by respondents.
● That trial court did not consider the material facts that petitioner has sufficient evidence of serious threats given by respondents, which had been duly recorded in his mobile. Petitioner also prepared a CD and computer typed Hindi Translated Script of telephone conversation.
● That trial court wrongly relied on the status report filed by IO, wherein it was reported that on inquiry, the dispute was found to be civil in nature and no cognizable offence was found to be committed.
● That trial court wrongly observed that there are no serious allegations and applicant is himself in possession of evidence. Whereas the nature of allegations and threats extended by the respondents are very serious. Petitioner further alleged that he was threatened on his telephone to be killed and his wife would be abducted and killed, if he dared to do any job. He was further threatened to be falsely implicated in a case of rape/outrage of modesty of woman through a bad character lady. ● That trial court failed to consider the facts that the offence is serious in nature, which is evident from the documents and respondents committed offences under Section 420/408/506/120B IPC.
APPRECIATION OF ARGUMENTS, FINDINGS AS WELL AS DECISION :-
5. Ld. counsel for petitioner emphasized upon the aspect of threats given to the petitioner by alleged accused persons. He also referred Page 3 of 5 (Pulastya Pramachala) Special Judge (PC Act) CBI, East District Karkardooma Courts, Delhi Criminal Revision No.196/2018 to transcript of recorded telephonic conversations between these persons.
6. On the other hand, ld. counsel for respondents denied the allegations and submitted that there is no infirmity in the impugned order.
7. On perusal of complaint filed by petitioner before the trial court, I find that though, the complaint was filed mentioning offences under Section 420/408/506/120B/34 IPC, however, the allegations made by him do not depict a clear cut picture of other offences, than 506 IPC. Petitioner alleged that he had been working for accused persons against salary and on commission basis. He worked hard and turn over of business of accused persons were taken to new height. Thereafter, accused persons became greedy and withdrew their offer of giving commission on sales. Petitioner refused to work further with them and started working separately. Accused gave a post dated cheque to complainant to clear his dues, but same was dishonored. Accused also did not return digital signature of petitioner. Thereafter, he was threatened by the accused persons. All these allegations do not explain the ingredients of deception or breach of trust.
8. As far as offence under Section 506 IPC is concerned, same is non- cognizable offence and therefore, FIR cannot be registered for non- cognizable offence. Any direction for investigation as postulated under Section 155 Cr.P.C, is within discretion of Magistrate and complainant cannot insist for the same without sufficient reasons.
9. In the present case, ld. MM has given liberty to the petitioner to lead his evidence and has also observed that in case of need inquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C can be held. I find that this was appropriate Page 4 of 5 (Pulastya Pramachala) Special Judge (PC Act) CBI, East District Karkardooma Courts, Delhi Criminal Revision No.196/2018 order in the given circumstances of the case. Same is perfectly legal and without any infirmity. Hence, this revision petition is dismissed.
10.TCR be sent back along with copy of order to the trial court. File be consigned to record room, as per rules.
Digitally signed by PULASTYA PRAMACHALA PULASTYA Location: Court
PRAMACHALA No.3, Karkardooma
Courts, Delhi
Date: 2018.12.12
14:50:55 +0530
Announced in the open court (PULASTYA PRAMACHALA)
today on 12.12.2018 Special Judge (PC Act) CBI, East
(This order contains 5 pages) Karkardooma Courts, Delhi
Page 5 of 5 (Pulastya Pramachala)
Special Judge (PC Act) CBI, East District
Karkardooma Courts, Delhi