Delhi District Court
G.D. Goenka Private Limited vs The State (Govt. Of Nct) on 14 August, 2014
IN THE COURT OF SHRI LOKESH KUMAR SHARMA
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE04, NEW DELHI DISTRICT
PATIALA HOUSE COURTS, NEW DELHI
Unique I D No. : 02403R0131342014
Criminal Revision Number : 105/2/14 dated 22.02.2014
C.C. No. : 915/1/13
U/S: : 156(3) Cr.P.C.
PS: : EOW
G.D. Goenka Private Limited
Through Mr. Rohit Gujral
Having its registered office at
N85, Connaught Place
New Delhi110001 ..... Petitioner/revisionist.
versus
1 The State (Govt. of NCT)
Through its Addl. Public Prosecutor
Department of Prosecution
2 Standard Chartered Bank
3 Sh Manish Gupta
4 Sh. Manish Singla
CA No. 105/2/14 Page No.1/8
G.D. Goenka Pvt Ltd Vs. Govt. of NCT & Ors
5 Sh. Anuj Vohra
6 Sh. Rahul Ahuja
7 Sh. Praveen Jain
8 Sh. Ajay Sharma
9 Sh. Ashish Vijaykar
10 Sh. Arup Roy
11 Sh. Hemant Mishra
12 Sh. Manish Damija
13 Sh. Peter Warbanoff
14 Ms Chandandeep Kaur
Address of Respondents No. 2 to 14
Standard Chartered Bank
Wholesale Banking
Credit Risk Control, India
H2, Connaught Circus,
New Delhi110001
Corporate office:
10 Parliament Street
New Delhi110001
..... Respondents.
Revision received by Court : 22.02.14
Arguments concluded : 14.08.14
Date of order : 14.08.14
ORDER:
1 By way of the present revision petition, the petitioner has challenged the CA No. 105/2/14 Page No.2/8 G.D. Goenka Pvt Ltd Vs. Govt. of NCT & Ors order dated 18.12.2013 passed by the court of Ms. Vijeta Singh Rawat, the Ld. MM04, New Delhi District, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi whereby the Ld. MM while dismissing the application under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. of the petitioner filed by him before the Ld. Trial Court for seeking direction to register an FIR, the Ld. MM was also pleased to dismiss the complaint of the petitioner as well which was filed under section 200 Cr.P.C. While holding so, the Ld. MM had arrived at the conclusion that no cognizable offence was made out for the following amongst other reasons:
1) That the petitioner before this court was stated to be an institution of repute and hence, it could not have been said that it blindfoldedly executed the agreement with the respondents with out evaluating its implications.
2) Ld. MM while forming the opinion was also pleased to observe that mere averment that documents were got executed on false representations and promises was not sufficient to hold that the offence of cheating was made out.
3) So far as the allegations related to the offences punishable under section 406 r/w sections 409 and 120B IPC are concerned, the Ld. MM had held that since the property stated to have been allegedly entrusted to the respondents was not described, hence no such offences were made out.
4) So far as the allegations related to the forgery of the documents and alleged sections for offences related thereto are concerned, the Ld. MM while CA No. 105/2/14 Page No.3/8 G.D. Goenka Pvt Ltd Vs. Govt. of NCT & Ors dismissing the complaint, was also pleased to observe that it was not made clear by the complainant as in the complaint in respect of which of the documents aforesaid offences were committed by the respondents. Delay in reporting the matter to the court was also cited as one of the reasons for holding that no cognizable offence was made out against the accused persons. 2 Ld. Counsel Sh. Neelabh Banerjee, appearing for the petitioner, while addressing arguments, has fairly conceded to the fact that he is not challenging the order and/or operation thereof related to dismissal of an application filed by the petitioner under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and now his prayer is restricted only with respect to dismissal of the complaint filed under section 200 CrPC. 3 After hearing the Ld. Counsel appearing for the petitioner and going through the material placed on record, I am of the considered opinion that impugned order as passed by the Ld. MM related to dismissal of complaint under section 200 Cr.P.C is erroneous and sufferers from serious illegality and infirmities. It is the cardinal principle of criminal justice as well as rule of pleadings that in his pleadings, a person is only required to plead facts alone and not the evidence in support thereof as well. It is always expected from the complainant that those facts shall be later on proved by him by adducing necessary evidence in support thereof. A failure to prove the allegations as set forth in the complaint by the complainant would always entail adverse CA No. 105/2/14 Page No.4/8 G.D. Goenka Pvt Ltd Vs. Govt. of NCT & Ors consequences for him. Hence, a complainant is only required to plead facts which can later on be proved by way of adducing evidence. Therefore, the Ld. MM, by stressing upon the complainant to have furnished the details of the entrustment of properties as well as the nature and description of documents purported to have been forged and fabricated by the proposed accused persons, in his complaint filed before her, was not justified in holding that there was no evidence pleaded by the complainant in his aforesaid complaint as there was no need and requirement for the complainant to have pleaded his defence as well.
4 Hence, it was incumbent upon the Court of Ld. MM that complainant must have been afforded an opportunity to prove the allegations, as set forth in its complaint, by way of adducing evidence on record. In my opinion, it was not just and proper on the part of the Ld. MM to have dismissed the complaint straight away by substituting her own observations on the facts cited before her.
5 In view of the aforesaid observations, the present petition is partly allowed and the dismissal of complaint filed under section 200 CrPC by the Ld. MM, is hereby set aside and the complaint is restored to its original number with the directions to the Ld. MM to afford an opportunity to the petitioner to prove factual allegations as contained in the complaint by way of adducing evidence CA No. 105/2/14 Page No.5/8 G.D. Goenka Pvt Ltd Vs. Govt. of NCT & Ors and thereafter to pass a detailed and speaking order after appreciation of the evidence so adduced on record.
6 With the above observations, the petition stands disposed of. 7 TCR, if any, be sent back to the concerned court alongwith copy of this order for compliance as per law.
8 Revision file be consigned to record room after completion of all other necessary formalities in this regard.
9 At this stage, Sh. Vijay Aggarwal, Ld. Counsel, who is appearing in other revision petition titled as Rajeev Malhotra vs. DGCEI, listed today for hearing before this court, has appeared as Friend of the Court and has placed reliance on judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of Manharibhai Muljibhai Kakadia v. Shaileshbhai Mohanbhai, reported as JCC 2012 (4), 3105, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court in para 58 was pleased to observed as under:
"We are in complete agreement with the view expressed by this Court in P. Sundarrajan (supra), Raghu Raj Singh Rousha (supra) and A.N. Santhanam (supra). We hold, as it must be, that in a revision petition preferred by complainant before the High Court or the Sessions Judge challenging an order of the Magistrate dismissing the complaint under section 203 of the Code at the stage under section 200 or after following the process contemplated under section 202 of the Code, the accused or a person who is suspected to CA No. 105/2/14 Page No.6/8 G.D. Goenka Pvt Ltd Vs. Govt. of NCT & Ors have committed crime is entitled to hearing by the revisional court. In other words, where complaint has been dismissed by the Magistrate under section 203 of the Code, upon challenge to the legality of the said order being laid by the complainant in a revision petition before the High Court or the Sessions Judge, the persons who are arraigned as accused in the complaint have a right to be heard in such revision petition. This is a plain requirement of section 401(2) of the Code. If the revisional court over turns the order of Magistrate dismissing the complaint and the complaint is restored to the file of the Magistrate and it is sent back for fresh consideration, the persons who are alleged in the complaint to have committed crime have, however, no right to participate in the proceedings nor they are entitled to any hearing of any sort whatsoever by the Magistrate until the consideration of the matter by the Magistrate for issuance of process. We answer the question accordingly. The judgments of the High Courts to the contrary are overruled".
10 In the light of the aforesaid ratio of the Hon'ble Apex Court, it has been submitted by Mr. Vijay Aggarwal that notice of the revision petition should have been essentially issued by this court to the proposed accused and disposal of the petition without even affording an opportunity to the proposed accused to address arguments in support of his case shall not be held good in the light of the cited law.
CA No. 105/2/14 Page No.7/8 G.D. Goenka Pvt Ltd Vs. Govt. of NCT & Ors 11 After going through the judgment cited and relied upon by Mr. Vijay Aggarwal at bar, I have no hesitation in holding that the present case is distinguishable on facts from the ratio of the judgement cited by him. In the said case, Ld. MM was pleased to dismiss the complaint under section 203 Cr.P.C. after having taken the cognizance of the matter under section 200 of Cr.P.C., whereas in the present case, Ld. MM has simply declined even to take cognizance of the offence and had dismissed the complaint straight away on the similar grounds and for the same reasons for which the application under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. of the petitioner was dismissed. Hence, section 200 Cr.PC or section 203 CrPC had no occassion to come into play in the facts of the present case.
12 Under these peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that no notice to the accused persons is required to be issued while disposing of the present revision petition.
13 File be consigned to record room after completion of all other necessary formalities.
Announced in the open
Court on 14.08.2014 (LOKESH KUMAR SHARMA)
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE04
NEW DELHI DISTRICT/ PATIALA
HOUSE COURTS/NEW DELHI
CA No. 105/2/14 Page No.8/8
G.D. Goenka Pvt Ltd Vs. Govt. of NCT & Ors