Delhi District Court
Ajit Kumar vs State & Others (Cc No. 72/1/15) Page 1 Of 6 on 30 March, 2016
1
IN THE COURT OF MS. HEMANI MALHOTRA/SPL.JUDGE
(PC ACT)(ACB)/CENTRAL05/TIS HAZARI COURTS/DELHI
Criminal Revision No.08/2016
CC No. 72/1/15
PS Maurice Nagar
Case ID No. 02401R0198262016
Ajit Kumar
S/o Sh. Dhaneshar Kamat
R/o H.No. 255256,
III Floor, Pocket 8,
Sector 24, Rohini,
New Delhi
.....Revisionist
1.State
through Govt. of NCT Delhi
2.Dilip Kumar Singh
S/o Sh. V.P. Singh
R/o H17/214, Sector 7,
Rohini, Delhi110018
Also: President of HRC Thrift &
Credit Society,
Premises Malka Ganj,
Delhi University,
Delhi
3.Teeka Ram
S/o Sh. Kashi Ram
R/o CN714, Gali No.2,
Sangam Vihar, Jharoda,
Delhi
Also: Secretary of HRC Thrift &
Credit Society,
Premises Malka Ganj,
Delhi University,
Delhi
4.Harish Sethi
S/o Late Tilak Raj Sethi
CR 08/16; Ajit Kumar Vs. State & Others (CC No. 72/1/15) Page 1 of 6
2
R/o K322, Sarita Vihar
New Delhi110076
5.Shiv Kumar
S/o Sh. Komal Singh
R/o Flat No.6, TypeII
Hansraj College,
Malka Ganj,
Delhi110007
.....Respondents
Date of Institution : 17.03.2016
Received by this Court : 17.03.2016
Date of conclusion of argument : 30.03.2016
Date of Order : 30.03.2016
ORDER
1. Present criminal revision petition has been filed by the revisionist Ajit Kumar against the impugned order dated 09.03.2016 passed in complaint case No. 72/1/15 titled as Dilip Kumar Singh & Ors. Vs. Satish Chand Ojha & another whereby Learned Trial Court has allowed the application of the complainants filed u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. and directed SHO PS Maurice Nagar to register an FIR against the revisionist.
2. Brief facts necessary for the disposal of the present revision petition are that the complainants/respondents filed a complaint U/s 200 Cr.P.C. r/w section 156(3) Cr.P.C. alleging that they along with co accused Satish Chand Ojha and revisionist are the members of HRC Thrift and Credit Society, Hans Raj College, Delhi University. The Society takes Compulsory Deposit of Rs.1,125/ from each of its members who are also the employees of Hans Raj College and gives loan to its members upto the limit of Rs.2,25,000/. The said loan is thereafter returned to the Society from the member's account with CR 08/16; Ajit Kumar Vs. State & Others (CC No. 72/1/15) Page 2 of 6 3 interest @ 78% p.a. The complainant No.1/Dilip Kumar Singh is the President, complainant No.2/Teeka Ram is the Secretary, the co accused Satish Chand Ojha is the Accountant/Clerk and revisionist is the Treasurer of HRC Thrift & Credit Society. After joining the Managing Committee of the Society in April 2014, the complainant No.1 observed a number of financial irregularities and discrepancies. Pursuant to which, he called coaccused Satish Chand Ojha who had been working as an Accountant in the Society since 2003 to explain the said discrepancies. However, coaccused kept on lingering the matter and eventually produced only three ledger accounts pertaining to the Financial Years 201011, 201112 and 201213. On scrutinizing the accounts, it was observed that the accounts were manipulated by the coaccused and he had cheated the Society to the tune of Rs.15 lakhs. While scrutinizing the accounts, it was also revealed that one member of the society namely Smt. Veena Mathur had repeatedly made a request to sanction a loan of Rs.1.5 lakhs in the year 201011, but the coaccused had destroyed the application form for grant of loan and had transferred Rs.1.5 lakhs from the account of the Society to his account, while showing that the amount of Rs.1.5 lakhs was transferred to the account of Smt. Veena Mathur. Thereafter, many meetings were called. However, the coaccused refused to attend the meetings. Finally, on 16.09.2014, the coaccused Satish Chand Ojha appeared and admitted the fraud and cheating committed by him. He also admitted that no one else but he was responsible for the said cheating and fraud and that he had taken a loan of Rs.1.5 lakhs in the name of Smt.Veena Mathur without her consent and had deposited the same in his own account. He accordingly agreed to return the misappropriated amount with interest @20% p.a. It was also agreed in a subsequent meeting that the admission of coaccused would not close the matter. However, the coaccused in collusion with the police officials settled the matter in the absence of complainant No.1. He (coaccused) along with the CR 08/16; Ajit Kumar Vs. State & Others (CC No. 72/1/15) Page 3 of 6 4 revisionist also requested the IO of this case to close the matter. It was also alleged that on 17.09.2014, the coaccused submitted a resignation letter which was not accepted. Similarly, the revisionist also requested for a long leave but the same was declined. Thereafter, many other incidents of fraud, cheating and manipulation of accounts committed by the coaccused Satish Chand Ojha came into light and despite requesting the coaccused Satish Chand Ojha, he failed to produce the documents.
3. On receipt of the complaint, the learned MM called for the Action Taken Report from the concerned SHO and after hearing the arguments, passed the impugned order dated 09.03.2016 allowing the application filed by the complainants/ respondents u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. It is this impugned order which is under challenge before this Court.
4. It has been argued by learned counsel for the revisionist that the impugned order dated 09.03.2016 has been passed without any application of mind and is contrary to the facts and has resulted in miscarriage of justice. There is not even a single allegation against the present revisionist in the complaint filed by the respondents. Rather, all the allegations are against the coaccused Satish Chand Ojha who was managing the accounts of the Society. It was further urged that the revisionist became the Treasurer of the Society in March 2014 and the fraud and misappropriation of money of the HRC Thrift & Credit Society and its members pertained to the years 201011, 201112 and 201213 during which the revisionist had no role to play in the functioning of the Society.
5. Per contra, it has been very strongly asserted by learned counsel for the respondents that there is no illegality in the impugned order and the revisionist was in active connivance with the coaccused Satish Chand Ojha as he did not hand over the relevant documents and CR 08/16; Ajit Kumar Vs. State & Others (CC No. 72/1/15) Page 4 of 6 5 instead made a request to proceed on a long leave.
6. To ascertain if any cognizable offence is made out against the revisionist, I perused the trial court record meticulously. The bare perusal of the complaint u/s 200 Cr.P.C., the documents attached therewith and the Action Taken Report filed by SI Rohit, PS Maurice Nagar reveal that the revisionist became the Treasurer of the HRC Thrift & Credit Society in March 2014 i.e. when the elections of the Society were held; and other members of the Managing Committee were elected. This fact was also conceded by the learned counsel for the respondents during the course of the arguments. Further, Annexure D reveals that soon after the elected members of the Society i.e. respondents and the revisionist took over the Society in March 2014, they inspected the ledgers and Statements of Accounts of the Society and observed major discrepancies and irregularities therein. Accordingly, they addressed a complaint dated 12.09.2014 to the Registrar, Cooperative Societies. Similarly, Annexure F reflects that when coaccused Satish Chand Ojha admitted the fraud and misappropriation committed by him, his admission was countersigned by all the members of the managing committee including the revisionist from which it can be inferred that the revisionist was one of the complainants and not the culprits.
7. The perusal of the impugned order dated 09.03.2016 reflects that the learned MM blindly directed registration of FIR against the revisionist. So far as the allegations against the revisionist are concerned, I have combed the entire complaint and despite the exercise, I could not find even an iota of allegation against the revisionist from which the role of the revisionist could be ascertained in the alleged fraud, cheating and misappropriation allegedly committed by the coaccused Satish Chand Ojha. Rather, it has not only been admitted but also demonstrated by the complainants in CR 08/16; Ajit Kumar Vs. State & Others (CC No. 72/1/15) Page 5 of 6 6 their complaint that it was the coaccused Satish Chand Ojha who had been the Clerk / Accountant since the year 2003 and had allegedly misappropriated the funds of the HRC Thrift & Credit Society. To substantiate their allegations against the coaccused Satish Chand Ojha, the complainants even placed on record his alleged admission wherein he had admitted his misdeeds. Merely because the revisionist allegedly did not hand over the documents or requested for a long leave cannot, in my opinion, establish any connivance between the revisionist and coaccused Satish Chand Ojha, especially when the revisionist was not even the part of the Managing Committee prior to year 2014 i.e. when the alleged misappropriation of funds of the society took place.
8. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I am of the opinion that the complaint has failed to disclose commission of any cognizable offence against the revisionist so as to direct FIR against him. Accordingly, the revision is allowed and the impugned order dated 09.03.2016 qua the revisionist Ajit Kumar is set aside. Trial Court Record be sent back along with the copy of this order. Revision file be consigned to Record Room.
Announced and signed in the open Court on 30th March, 2016 (HEMANI MALHOTRA) Special Judge/PC Act/ACB, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi CR 08/16; Ajit Kumar Vs. State & Others (CC No. 72/1/15) Page 6 of 6