Delhi District Court
Sarvjeet Singh vs State ( N.C.T Of Delhi) on 27 January, 2012
IN THE COURT OF SHRI RAJEEV BANSAL,
ASJ-03 (SOUTH DISTRICT), SAKET COURTS,
NEW DELHI.
Criminal Revision No. 66/10
(Unique No.02406R0409462010)
Sarvjeet Singh
S/o Sh. Jagjit Singh
R/o H. No. 62, Village Govindwal Sahib
Amritsar, Punjab
...........Revisionist
Versus
State ( N.C.T of Delhi)
........Respondent
Date of Institution :21.12.2010
Date of Pronouncement :27.01.2012
ORDER
1. This revision petition has been filed against the order dated 14.5.2010 whereby the Ld. Trial Court had directed framing of charge against the Petitioner u/s 406/420 IPC. Aggrieved by this order, the Petitioner has preferred this revision petition.
C.R No.66/10 Sarvjeet Singh vs. State 1/11
2. Sh. Ravinder Narayan, Ld. Counsel for the Revisionist has vehementally argued that the alleged incident in question took place on 9/10.8.1999 and the complaint was filed by Makhan Singh in police after 15 days on 25.8.1999. Further, it has been argued that there was no recovery of any money from him. Ld. Counsel further argued that the Ld. Trial Court has ordered framing of charge u/s 406 and 420 IPC against the Petitioner but these two charges cannot go together as the charge u/s 406 IPC requires 'entrustment' and section 420 IPC requires 'inducement' and both these elements are missing in this case. As such, Ld. Counsel has prayed for discharge.
3. On the other hand, the Ld. Addl. PP has supported the impugned order and has stated that on 4/5.8.1999, the Petitioner took Amarjeet Singh (deceased) son of the complainant with him, luring him of opening shopping centre at Pilibhit. The deceased carried Rs. 6.30 Lakhs with him to Pilibhit. Amarjeet Singh was accompanied by the Petitioner, Driver Dimpy, Vidhan Singh Garhwali and C.R No.66/10 Sarvjeet Singh vs. State 2/11 a beautiful girl. Sarvjeet gave some liquor and poisonous substance for stomach ache to the deceased and when his condition deteriorated, he was taken to a Govt. hospital and then to a private hospital to Barelley. However, when the deceased was being brought to Delhi for treatment in Ambulance, he expired. The petitioner did not return the amount of Rs.6.30 lacs to the complainant. Ld. Addl. PP has further relied upon the statements of the witnesses Sarabjeet Kaur and Surat Singh Sandhu recorded u/s 161 Cr PC and has thus prayed for dismissal of the Revision Petition.
4. I have heard both the Ld. Counsels and have perused the trial court records, which were summoned. On 25.8.1999, M.S. Sandhu, father of the deceased Amarjeet Singh gave a written complaint to SHO, PS Lodhi Colony. The relevant part of the complaint are that Amarjeet Singh came from Canada on 7.5.1999 to attend marriage of his brother Vikram Singh on 13.5.1999 wherein he threw notes of Rs. 500/- and dollars on bride. C.R No.66/10 Sarvjeet Singh vs. State 3/11 Petitioner saw all this and lured Amarjeet by providing a beautiful girl to sleep with and in this manner he succeeded in winning over his trust and lured him to accompany him to Pilibhit for a plot for shopping complex. Influenced by the allurement of petitioner, Amarjeet Singh went on the night of 4/5th August 1999 in Tata Seira Car with Petitioner, Driver Dimpy, Vidhan Singh Garhwali and that beautiful girl. At about 9 AM on 05.08.1999, they all reached Shahjahan Pur where Petitioner took two rooms on rent and in one room, Sarabjeet Singh and that girl were put up while Petitioner went to Gola Town in Pilibhit. All of them drank whiskey. Amarjeet Singh felt pain in abdomen. On 7.8.1999 Petitioner and others took Amarjeet to Gala Farms where he was given some poisonous juice to cure him of his abdomen pain. However his condition deteriorated and he was admitted in the Govt. Civil Hospital and after 5-6 hours, he was told by the Doctors to be shifted to private nursing home which the Petitioner did but on 8.8.1999 nursing home doctors advised to take Amarjeet to Delhi C.R No.66/10 Sarvjeet Singh vs. State 4/11 but Petitioner refused to take Amarjeet to Delhi despite advice of driver Dimpy also. Saravjeet got him admitted in Dhanwantri Tomar Hospital, Bareilly with the intent to cheat Amarjeet Singh of his Rs. 6.30 Lacs which the Petitioner had with him and which was taken by Amarjeet Singh for purchasing Shopping Complex or land. On 9.8.1999, Petitioner telephoned Amarjeet's wife Nirmal Kaur and told her about the serious condition of Amarjeet and asked her to come to Bareilley. Complainant's sons Charanjit Singh, Gurdeep Singh and Complainant's brother Surat Singh went to Bareilley in Santro Car with Rs. 70,000/- and reached Dhanwantri Tomar Hospital where only Amarjeet Singh was found in unconscious condition and none else was found. An ambulance with Doctor was provided for taking Amarjeet Singh to AIIMS or RML Hospital for stomach wash. On the night of 9/10th August 1999 at 3 PM Amarjeet died due to denial of good medical treatment by Sarvjeet Singh so that he could cheat Rs. 6.30 Lacs of Amarjeet Singh's with him. C.R No.66/10 Sarvjeet Singh vs. State 5/11
5. On his complaint an enquiry was conducted by police but the allegations mentioned in the complaint could not be substantiated. The complainant then filed a Crl. WP for registration of an FIR for murder of his son Amarjeet Singh. However, the Hon'ble High Court after taking into consideration the status report and the medical report, vide its Order dt. 19.10.2001 directed that a case of cheating be registered on the basis of allegations made by the complainant. The complainant was however given liberty to revive the Petition, which he did. FIR No. 410/01 was registered u/s 406/420 IPC against the Petitioner and vide Order dt. 27.1.2005 it is observed by the Hon'ble High Court that the accused Sarvjeet Singh was initially granted anticipatory bail by High Court vide its Order dt. 20.9.2004 but he was subsequently arrested on 8.11.2004 but no recovery could be effected from him as according to the accused all the money namely Rs. 6,30,000/- was spent by him.
6. Main argument of the Ld. Counsel for the petitioner C.R No.66/10 Sarvjeet Singh vs. State 6/11 is that neither the deceased was carrying any such money unlike claimed by his father - complainant nor any such money was entrusted to him and as such no question arises that the Petitioner had taken or misappropriated the said amount.
7. There are 161 Cr PC statements of Gurdeep Singh - brother of the deceased, Charanjeet Singh - brother of the deceased, Sarbjeet Kaur sister of the deceased, Ajay Kumar Arora - a neighbour and Surat Singh Sandhu Chacha of the deceased wherein they had stated that the deceased was carrying Rs. 6.5 lakh with him when he accompanied the Petitioner. Surat Singh and Charanjeet Singh had also stated that they were told by the deceased Amarjeet that petitioner Saravjeet Singh had been carrying him to hospital for the last 52-54 hours and Saravjeet Singh also had the money bag with him and he was administered something in liquor. In the hospital itself, Charanjeet Singh and Gurdeep Singh asked Saravjeet Singh about the bag of notes, when the Petitioner told C.R No.66/10 Sarvjeet Singh vs. State 7/11 them that the same was in the house of one of his relative and went to bring it but he did not return. It thus cannot be said that there is no evidence on record to show that the deceased was carrying Rs. 6,30,000/- with him when he accompanied the Petitioner to Pilibhit and the said bag was in custody and possession of the petitioner.
8. The Ld. Counsel for the Petitioner relied upon a Judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Cogent Silver Fiber Pvt. Ltd. vs. State 2007 (2) JCC 1363 to argue that unless there is an initial intention to cheat and delivery of property, neither criminal breach of trust nor cheating would be made out and in the present case also, there is nothing to show about the presence of these two elements and hence the charge u/s 406/420 IPC may be set aside.
9. So far as the law regarding section 406 and 420 IPC is concerned, there is no denial to the proposition of law laid down in the aforesaid judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi C.R No.66/10 Sarvjeet Singh vs. State 8/11 High Court. But each judgment is rendered in the facts of each case. I do not agree with the Ld. Counsel that there is nothing on record to show the presence of these two elements in the present case. The complainant himself and statements of witnesses noted in preceding para, prima facie substantiate the allegation that the deceased was carrying the money with him when he accompanied the Petitioner. It has also been stated by the witnesses that the deceased himself had told them that the bag of money was with the Petitioner, which he stated to have kept with a relative and when the bag was demanded, he vanished on the pretext of bringing the same. The complainant has already stated in his complaint that the Petitioner had lured him to accompany him to Pilibhit for buying shopping complex or land there. Hence, it cannot be said that there was no initial intention to cheat on the part of the Petitioner. We are only at the stage of charge and the requirement of nature of evidence at this stage is totally different from the stage when it is decided by a Court as to whether the accused can be convicted or not. We thus C.R No.66/10 Sarvjeet Singh vs. State 9/11 cannot lose sight of the law on the point of charge, which is well settled now, that a court would be fully justified in framing charge against an accused if there is grave suspicion that the accused might have committed the offence. Court is not required to sift the evidence and the material on record in great detail at this stage.
10. The Ld. Trial Court has directed framing of charge u/s 406/420 IPC against the Petitioner vide its Order dt. 14.5.2010 and I find that the said charge is prima-facie made out from the material available on record. I do not find any infirmity in the Order assailed by the Petitioner in these proceedings.. The present Petition is thus devoid of merits and is hereby dismissed.
11. Trial Court records be returned back with directions to proceed further in this matter in accordance with law and should try to expedite the proceedings as the FIR is of the year 2001. The Petitioner is directed to appear before the Ld. Trial Court on 3.2.2012.
C.R No.66/10 Sarvjeet Singh vs. State 10/11
12. File be consigned to the Record Room.
Announced in the open court. ( Rajeev Bansal )
Dated: 27.01.2012 ASJ-3/South District
Saket Courts, New Delhi
C.R No.66/10 Sarvjeet Singh vs. State 11/11