Delhi District Court
Smt. Topsy Bhatia vs Vivek Awasthy on 28 March, 2012
IN THE COURT OF SH.SURESH CHAND RAJAN
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE/SPECIAL JUDGE(NDPS)
DWARKA COURTS, NEW DELHI
Crl. Revision No.18/12
Smt. Topsy Bhatia
W/o Sh Sanjeev Bhatia
C447, Ground Floor, Vikaspuri
New Delhi
....Revisionist
Vs.
Vivek Awasthy
S/o Sh. P.N.Awasthy
A2/139, Sec.5
Rohini, Delhi 110085
...... Respondent
Date of Institution : 25.01.2012
Reserved for order on : 23.03.2012
Date of Pronouncement: 28.03.2012
ORDER
The present revision U/s 397 Cr.P.C has been preferred against order dated 28.05.2011 passed by Sh Pawan Singh Rajawat Ld. MM in CC no.46/10 titled Vivek Awasthy Vs. Sanjeev Bhatia and Topsy Bhatia whereby the appellant had been summoned for the commission of offence punishable u/s 420 r/w sec. 415 IPC. Topsy Bhatia Vs. Vivek Awasthy C.R.No.18/12 Page No. 1 of 7
2. Briefly stated the facts for giving rise to this revision is that appellant/accused was know to respondent/complainant as Sanjeev Bhatia husband of appellant was known to appellant as both studied together. Vivek Bhatia is running the business of travel, tourism, taxi operations and property dealer alongwith his wife. The respondent was planning to visit Sweden/Brazil for business related medical trade conference during Oct/Nov.2007. The accused Sanjeev Bhatia induced the complainant that he can arrange for his visa, ticket and revalidation of passport which would cost him approx Rs. 2.00 lac. Sanjeev Bhatia husband of revisionist asked the respondent to pay Rs.1.00 lac in advance which was agreed by the respondent/complainant. It has been alleged that the present revisionist is assisting her husband in the travel business. It has further been alleged that an advance of Rs.1.00 lac was advanced to accused Sanjeev Bhatia on 5.6.07 and accused assured that he will arrange for ticket, visa and will get the passport revalidated. After about one week, respondent/complainant contacted accused Sanjeev Bhatia who told that it would take about a week time and thereafter again the accused Sanjeev Bhatia was contacted but no satisfactory reply was given. Accused Sanjeev Bhatia did not meet in the office despite visit of respondent and present revisionist met who manages the booked of tickets etc who informed that she is also equally responsible for running the business. She was requested to return the Topsy Bhatia Vs. Vivek Awasthy C.R.No.18/12 Page No. 2 of 7 money of Rs.1.00 lac and passport and she handed over the passport but refused to refund the money. Accused Sanjeev Bhatia when contacted on phone, avoided on one pretext or the other. It has further been submitted that accused Sanjeev Bhatia, after great pursuation issued four self bearer cheques for Rs.25,000/ each darwn on HDFC Bank and handed over to the complainant/respondent towards return of Rs.1.00 lac and assured that the cheque would be honoured on due date. On presentation of these cheques, the same were returned unpaid and thereafter the information was given to accused Sanjeev Bhatia who flatly refused to return the money. It has been averred in the complaint that accused Sanjeev Bhatia has dishonestly and fraudulently with intent to cheat the complainant/respondent induced him to part with money of Rs.1.00 lac on the pretext of getting the passport revalidated and arranging of visa and tickets. It has been further averred that accused no.2/present revisionist is equally liable and responsible as she is also looking after the day to day functioning of the aforesaid office. The accused have caused wrongful gain to themselves and wrongful loss to the complainant/respondent. The aforesaid cheques were issued by the accused no.1 Sanjeev Bhatia from the account of Companion Travel Services with the consent and inconnivance with present revisionist. It has been further stated that the complainant/respondent lodged report with the commissioner of Topsy Bhatia Vs. Vivek Awasthy C.R.No.18/12 Page No. 3 of 7 Police but no action was taken and accused are still at large and threatening the respondent with dire consequences. Hence complaint was filed before the Ld. trial court. Presummoning evidence was led by the complainant before the Ld. trial court. After hearing the arguments on summoning of accused persons, Ld. MM has passed an order dated 28.05.2011 thereby summoning accused Sanjeev Bhatia as well as present revisionist Topsy Bhatia u/s 420 r/w sec. 415/34 IPC. Feeling aggrieved by the said order dated 28.05.2011, the revisionist Topsy Bhatia has preferred this present revision petition for setting aside the said order.
3. This revision was received by this court and notice was issued to the respondent. Trial court record was summoned which was received. Thereafter on 23.03.2012 I have heard the arguments from the Ld. Counsel for the revisionist as well as Ld.counsel for the respondent.
4. During the course of arguments, it has been submitted by the Ld. Counsel for the revisionist that the respondent did not even have prima facie case and the Ld.MM has not applied his judicial mind. It has been submitted that the revisionist is not the signatory of the proprietorship concern. Also she is not the proprietor of M/s Companion Travel Services and do not have legal conversation with the respondent. It has been submitted that the said Topsy Bhatia Vs. Vivek Awasthy C.R.No.18/12 Page No. 4 of 7 contention could be verified and substantiated from various correspondences addressed to the said firm in which it has been clearly shown that Sanjev Bhatia is the proprietor of M/s Companion Travel Services. Ld. Counsel has further argued that the present petitioner has also not issued the cheques in question in favour of the respondent and the respondent has intentionally and deliberately made the revisionist as accused in the complaint. It has been submitted that the respondent has not filed his financial status i.e. whether he could have ever afforded to travel abroad and there is no document that he was invited to any country abroad. Ld. Counsel has prayed that the order dated 28.5.2011 may kindly be set aside.
5. On the other hand Ld. Counsel for the respondent has strongly refuted the submissions made by the Ld. Counsel for the revisionist and he has argued that Ld. MM has passed the order under challenge after considering each and every fact and allegation in the complaint. The order passed by the Ld. MM does not call for any interference by this court. It has been prayed that the revision petition may kindly be dismissed.
6. In consideration of the arguments advanced by the Ld. Counsel for the revisionists as well as Ld. Counsel for the respondent, I have also perused the Ld. Trial court file as well as Topsy Bhatia Vs. Vivek Awasthy C.R.No.18/12 Page No. 5 of 7 order for summoning the accused/revisionist dated 28.05.2011. It is well settled law that in revision only the illegality committed by the trial court is to be seen. I have perused the order dated 28.5.2011 as well as the statement of complainant/respondent and the pre summoning evidence led before the Ld. Trial court. In pre summoning evidence, respondent/complainant has alleged that he was supposed to visit Brazil/Sweden and he approached travel agent M/S Companion Travels located at B222 Ist Floor, Naraina Ph.I, proprietor Mr. Sanjeev Bhatia/Mrs.Topsy Bhatia and these people had induced him that they are having good relations with various embassies, revalidation of his passport arranging of visa and ticket for the above tour and they had asked for a fee of Rs.2,00,000/ payable as 50% as advance in cash. They had called for the said purpose at Naraina on 4.6.2007. It has been further alleged that accused no.2/revisionist Mrs.Topsy Bhatia manages the booking of tickets, visa and overseas hotel and complainant/respondent has also stated that Mrs.Topsy informed him that she is also equally responsible for running the business alongwith her husband and that on his request she also returned his passport but refused to return the amount paid in advance. In view of the statement of complainant/respondent and material available on file, I am of the view that the Ld. MM has considered each and every aspect while passing the order dated 28.5.2011 for summoning the revisionist. Topsy Bhatia Vs. Vivek Awasthy C.R.No.18/12 Page No. 6 of 7 There is no illegality, impropriety or infirmity in the order passed by the Ld.MM. Resultantly the present revision is hereby dismissed.
7. Parties to appear before the Ld. Trial court on 03.04.2012.
8. Trial court file be sent back with the copy of this order to the court concerned and revision file be consigned to record room. Announced in the Open Court on 28.03.2012.
(SURESH CHAND RAJAN) ADDL.SESSIONS JUDGE/ SPECIAL JUDGE(NDPS) NEW DELHI Topsy Bhatia Vs. Vivek Awasthy C.R.No.18/12 Page No. 7 of 7