Delhi District Court
Jindal Kumar S/O Late Sh. Kishan Lal vs Sunil Kumar Jain on 11 February, 2016
IN THE COURT OF SANJAY GARG-I : SPECIAL JUDGE-IV,
(PC ACT) CBI: DELHI.
CR No. 09/2016
ID No: 02401R0065042016
Jindal Kumar s/o late Sh. Kishan Lal
R/o RZ- 338, Nihal Vihar, Nangloi,
Delhi. ... Petitioner
Versus
1. Sunil Kumar Jain
2998, Chandni Chowk,
Bali Maan, Near Chhotti Baradari,
Opp. Karan Photo Studio,
Delhi 110006
2. Govt. of NCT of Delhi. ... Respondents
Date of Institution: 30.01.2016
Date of Arguments: 10.02.2016
Date of Judgment: 11.02.2016
ORDER
1. Vide this petition order impugned is dated 31.10.2015 vide which application moved by petitioner under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. was dismissed.
2. Brief facts of the case are that petitioner/complainant is proprietor of M/s Wah-Wah Style Fashions and running his business from premises RZ-H-66, Raghu Nagar, Gali No. 9, near Shri Ram Hospital, Dabri More, New Delhi. He deals in sale and purchase of rejected surplus export garments. He had supplied CR No. 09/2016 Jindal Kumar Vs. Sunil Kumar Jain & anr. Page 1 of 5 12786 pieces of export surplus garments to M/s Ankit Enterprises, RZ-3 D-6 Gali No.7, Indira Park, Palam Road against consideration of Rs. 95,895/-. Aditya, proprietor of M/s Ankit Enterprises had received delivery of goods. On his instructions, respondent had collected and received payment of Rs. 95,895/- from Aditya, proprietor of M/s Ankit Enterprises on 14.11.2009. Respondent had signed and executed voucher on 14.11.2009 admitting and acknowledging payments. Thereafter on several times he had contacted the respondent to make payment of this amount but he is avoiding on one pretext or the other. Sh. Aditya proprietor of M/s Ankit Enterprises also apprised the fact to him that the respondent has received the said payment. He had sent a legal notice dated 25.3.2011 but respondent did not pay the money. He has filed civil suit for recovery of this amount against respondent. In the backdrop of these facts, it is prayed that respondent be summoned and prosecuted for the commission of offences under Sections 166/177/181/182/191/192/193/196/199/200/209/211/405/406/415/ 418/420/464/465/468/471 IPC.
3. Heard arguments of Dr. M. K. Gahlaut, Ld. counsel for the petitioner and Sh. Pankaj Sharma, Ld. counsel for the respondent. Perused the trial court record.
4. Ld. counsel for the petitioner has submitted that Ld. trial court has failed to appreciate that the police has statutory obligations and responsibility to register the FIR as soon as cognizable offence is reported to have been committed. It has been stated that the Ld. trial court has not rightly and correctly applied the ratio of the judgment of M/s Skipper Beverages P. Ltd. Vs. State [92 (2001) DLT 217]. It has been stated that respondent CR No. 09/2016 Jindal Kumar Vs. Sunil Kumar Jain & anr. Page 2 of 5 has denied to have signed the voucher on which this case is based and same needs to be compared with the specimen signatures of the respondent by CFSL and same could only be done by police.
5. On the other hand, Ld. counsel for the respondent has submitted that voucher on which this complaint is based has been fabricated by the petitioner to extort money from him. It has been stated that the civil suit for recovery filed by the petitioner on the basis of this voucher stands dismissed. It has been stated that the Ld. trial court has rightly observed that there is nothing on record which warrants directions for registration of FIR and this application was rightly dismissed.
6. As per the trial court record SHO PS Subzi Mandi has filed action taken report on this complaint mentioning that dispute is of civil in nature and no cognizable offence has been committed against the complainant.
7. In Subkharan Luharuka Vs. State (Govt. of NCT) & Utility Premsies Pvt. Ltd. [MANU/DE/1646/2010], the court has laid down various guidelines to be followed by subordinate courts while dealing with application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. The court has observed that Magistrate should pass order under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. only if he is satisfied with the information reveals commission of cognizable offence and also necessity of digging out evidence which is neither in possession of the complainant nor can be procured without the assistance of the police.
8. In Pankjani Swain Vs. State (NCD of Delhi) & ors. [Crl. M.C. No. 2755/2013 decided on 20.05.2014] while dealing with similar situation, in para 16 & 17 the court has observed as CR No. 09/2016 Jindal Kumar Vs. Sunil Kumar Jain & anr. Page 3 of 5 follows:-
"16. In the instant case, the parties are known to each other. The evidence on which the petitioner relies is within her knowledge and control and if need were to arise for investigation, such possibility is not precluded as learned trial court has entered upon the inquiry under Section 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. Proviso to Section 202 Cr.P.C. permit such investigation to be ordered at an appropriate stage of the proceedings.
17. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order dated 28.1.2014 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, New Delhi and order dated 23.3.2013 passed by the Learned Metropolitan Magistrate-10, Dwarka, New Delhi"
9. In Khandelwal Builders Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State [Crl. M.C. No. 2367/2011 decided on 8.11.2012], after relying upon judgment of the Apex court in Minu Kumari & anr. Vs. State of Bihar & ors. [(2006) 4 SCC 359] and Sakiri Vasu Vs. State of U.P. & ors. [(2008) 4 SCC 409], in para 28 the court has observed as follows:-
"28. Ld. MM in the impugned order has rightly come to the conclusion that all the facts and circumstances of the case are within the knowledge of the complainant requiring no investigation by the police. In the light of judicial pronouncements as discussed above, it cannot be said that he has committed any illegality by rejecting the application under Section 156(3) CrPC filed by the petitioner for registration of the FIR."
10. In the present case only contention raised by petitioner is that specimen signatures of the respondent needs to be taken for comparison with the questioned signatures on the said voucher and the same can only be down by police after registration of the FIR. All alleged supporting documents to the allegations of the CR No. 09/2016 Jindal Kumar Vs. Sunil Kumar Jain & anr. Page 4 of 5 petitioner are in his possession and same has not to be dug out from any where. The complaint filed by petitioner is sub-judice before the Ld. trial court and the trial court has power, if satisfied, to direct the respondent to give signature before him and the same may be either compared by the court himself or may be sent for comparison by Handwriting expert. Moreover, even under Section 202(1) Cr.P.C. Magistrate can still order for police investigation at the proper stage.
11. Accordingly, in view of the various reasons discussed above, I find no illegality in the impugned order. The various grounds raised by Ld. counsel for the petitioner against the impugned order are found without merit. The revision petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
12. The trial court record along with copy of this order be sent back.
13. The file of the revision petition be consigned to record room.
Announced in open court (SANJAY GARG-I)
on this 11th day of Feb. 2016 SPECIAL JUDGE-IV, CBI (PC Act)
TIS HAZARI COURTS,DELHI
CR No. 09/2016 Jindal Kumar Vs. Sunil Kumar Jain & anr. Page 5 of 5