Delhi District Court
Prashant Dayal vs State on 18 July, 2016
IN THE COURT OF SHRI RAMESH KUMAR: ASJ/SPECIAL JUDGE
(PC ACT) (CBI) SOUTH DISTRICT: SAKET DISTRICT COURTS
NEW DELHI
Criminal Revision Number : 14/15
Unique ID No. 02406R0083192015
Prashant Dayal
R/o R-9/27 Raj Nagar,
Ghaziabad, U.P.
.......................Revisionist.
Versus
1 State
2 M/s Rathi TMT Saria Pvt Ltd
Having registered office at
C-235, Savitri Nagar,
New Delhi-110017
.......................Respondent
Date of institution of Revision : 12/03/2015
Date of Allocation : 13/03/2015
Date of conclusion of arguments : 05/07/2016
Date of Judgment : 18/07/2016
Particulars related to impugned order:
FIR No. : 962/07
PS : Malviya Nagar
Date of impugned order : 29/08/2014
Name of learned Trial Court : Ms Chetna Singh
MM-02/South/Saket Courts
New Delhi.
Memo of Appearance
Sh K.P. Singh,, Ld Counsel for the revisionist.
Ld Additional PP for State for respondent no.1
Sh S.K. Triapthi, Ld Counsel for Respondent No.2
JUDGMENT
1. The present is a judicial verdict on a revision petition filed against the orders, dated 29/08/2014, passed by Ld Trial Court, Saket Courts, New Delhi.
2 Present revision has been filed by the revisionist, namely, Prashant Dayal, against the order, dated 29/08/2014, vide which Ld Trial Court took cognizance U/S 406/420/34 of IPC and summoned revisionist Prashant Dayal.
3 Trial court record has been summoned and perused.
4 Brief facts of the case are that a complaint was given by the complainant against Prashant Dayal to the effect that he induced the complainant company i.e. Rathi TMT Saria (P) Ltd to purchase the plant, machinery, equipments and parts thereof from them and help them to establish in the market. On the assurance of the accused, complainant company paid advance of Rs. 3,93,99,889/- to the accused persons from the month of August, 2005 to March 2006 for supply of the plant, machinery, equipments and parts thereof for his factory. After getting the amount in advance, accused persons failed to supply the required plant, machinery and equipments to the complainant and after continuous persuasion by the complainant, accused persons supplied some machinery to the complainant company worth Rs. 1,94,29,859 till June, 2006. Thereafter, accused persons stopped supplying the plant and machinery to the complainant company and thereby caused the loss of Rs, 1,99,70,028/- to the complainant. On this complaint, an FIR was registered and, after completion of the investigation of the case, challan was filed before the Court alongwith the cancellation report. A notice was issued to the complainant and thereafter protest petition was filed, which was withdrawn by the complainant and, thereafter, a fresh protest petiton was filed on the opportunity granted by the Court.
5 Vide order, dated 23/10/2013, Ld Magistrate did not accept the cancellation report and further fixed the matter for complainant's evidence U/s 200 Cr.PC and also further observed that if at any stage, after the evidence is led by the complainant, the court finds that some investigation is required, the court may order the same under Section 202 Cr.PC and this order shall not be a bar in such investigation at a later stage.
6 Thereafter, on 21/05/2014, Ld Magistrate had accepted the cancellation report and directed to consign the file to Record Room.
7 Thereafter, complainant filed the revision against the said order and the appellate Court while disposing of the revision petition, directed the Ld Magistrate to re- consider the cancellation report under Section 173 Cr.PC presented by the police and the protest petition and then take a fresh call for appropriate course of action.
8 On 29/08/2014, Ld Trial Court took the cognizance of the offence u/s 406/420/34 of IPC and summoned the accused persons, namely, Prashant Dayal and Himkar Dayal.
9. Aggrieved from the said order, revisionist, Prashant Dayal, has preferred this revision. It has been contended by Ld Counsel for the revisionist that the impugned order is passed in a mechanical style. It has further been contended that the Ld Trial Court had failed to appreciate that the complaint filed by Respondent no.2 is cryptic and does not disclose any criminal offence much less than the offences U/s 406/420/34 of IPC. It has further been contended that Ld Trial Court failed to appreciate that the entire material on record is not sufficient to link the Revisionist with the alleged offences and there is no basis for taking the cognizance and summoning the Revisionist as an accused. It has further been contended that Ld Trial Court had misinterpreted the documents filed alongwith the cancellation report as there is no new document or new facts which have come before the Ld court while passing the impugned order. All the documents and the facts are entirely the same which were there on 20.07.2009 filed alongwith the cancellation report on the basis of which the police has opined that there is no incriminating evidence to chargesheet the revisionist. It has further been contended that taking cognizance of the offence and summoning the Revisionist is contrary to the settled norms and principles of criminal jurisprudence, as there is no new evidence which has come on the records. It has further been contended that the impugned order is not speaking one in as much as it does not reflect application of judicial mind on the totality of the facts. It has further been contended that Ld Trial had failed to appreciate that the respondent no.2 has concealed the material fact from the Hon'ble Court that the Arbitration proceedings in respect of the same , are pending between the parties.
10 I have given my thoughtful consideration to the aforesaid contentions and have carefully perused the entire trial court record, including the complaint and various documents on record.
11 It may be pointed out that Ld Trial Court vide its order, dated 29/08/2014, had observed that, " in view of the submissions made and in view of the contents of the cancellation which are on record whereby the FSL result has been received to be positive, this court deems it appropriate to accept the report furnished and to take cognizance of the offence U/S 406/420/34 of IPC. Hence, accused persons namely Prashant Dayal and Himakar Dayal be summoned through IO for 15.12.2014."
12 It is clear from the above quoted observation that order of Ld Trial Court that ld Trial Court had considered the FSL result before taking the cognizance for the offence u/s 406/420/34 of IPC. Ld Trial Court had also considered the material placed on record.
13 Ld Counsel for respondent has contended that the impugned order is an interlocutory order and hence no revision lies against the said order and hence it is liable to be dismissed as not maintainable.
14 After going through the material on record, I am of the considered view that prima facie there was sufficient material before the Ld Trial Court to summon the accused. Thus there is no illegality, irregularity and infirmity in the order passed by Ld Trial Court, since the FSL result was found to be positive. Ld Trial Court was fully justified in passing the impugned order keeping in view the material placed before it. It may be pointed that during the evidence before the Ld Trial Court, revisionist will get the sufficient opportunity to defend himself 15 In view of the above observations, present revision petiton is, hereby, dismissed.
16 Nothing stated herein shall tantamount to have an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.
17 A copy of this judgment be sent to learned Trial Court along with the trial court record.
18 File related to Revision Petition be consigned to the Record Room.
Announced in the open court ( Ramesh Kumar)
on 18th of July, 2016 ASJ/Special Judge (PC Act)(CBI)
South Distt: Saket Courts:
New Delhi