Delhi District Court
Cr No. 09/13 vs State on 17 May, 2014
IN THE COURT OF ATUL KUMAR GARG: ASJ-03:CENTRAL
HAZARI COURTS : DELHI
CR No. 09/13
Sh.Satpal Singh Bakshi,
S/o Lt. Sh. Didar Singh,
R/o 27/8, Old Rajinder Nagar,
New Delhi-60.
... Revisionist
Versus
1. State
5, Sham Nath Marg, Delhi.
2. Mohd.Naseem,
S/o Mohd. Kaleem,
R/o AB-430, Amritpuri,
Nabi Karim, Paharganj,
New Delhi-55.
...Respondents
CR NO. 59/13
1. Mohd. Nasim
S/o Mohd. Kalim
R/o AB 430, Amar Puri,
Nabi Karim, N. Delhi.
2. State of NCT
Through Public Prosecutor
... Revisionists
CR No. 9/13 Satpal Singh Bakshi Vs. State Page No. 1
CR No. 59/13 Mohd. Naseem Vs. B.S.Deshwal
Versus
B.S. Deshwal,
S/o Bharat Singh
R/o C-122, New Rajender Nagar
Delhi.
... Respondent
ORDER
1. These are two revision petitions arising out of common order passed by Ld. MM dated 12.12.2012 whereby the revisionist Satpal Singh Bakshi was ordered to be charged while Bijender Singh Deshwal was discharged from the present case. Both Satpal Singh as well as Mohd. Naseem are aggrieved from this order as such they filed their revision petitions assailing the said order. Both revisionist has stated that trial court had passed the order illegally, unlawfully and arbitrarily. Therefore, both require that the order be recalled and set aside. While the revisionist Satpal Singh Bakshi submits that the order dated 12.12.2012 be set aside whereby he was ordered to be charged for the offence CR No. 9/13 Satpal Singh Bakshi Vs. State Page No. 2 CR No. 59/13 Mohd. Naseem Vs. B.S.Deshwal mentioned in the complaint, while the revisionist Mohd. Naseem submits and prayed that order be recalled and accused B.S. Deshwal be also charged for the offence mentioned in the complaint.
2. Upon filing of these revision petitions, trial court record was summoned by this court. As per the trial court record, a complaint has been moved by the complainant before Ld. MM, Delhi who had directed the police to register the FIR and investigate the case. This complaint has been filed by the revisionist Mohd. Naseem against M/s Bretton Woods Finlease Ltd. through Director Sh. B.S. Deswal, Sh. Trilok Chand, an Ex- Manager of M/s Bretton Woods Finlease Ltd. and Satpal Singh Bakshi claiming that he was the permanent resident of H. No. AB 430, Amar Puri, Nabi Karim, Pahar Ganj, Delhi. Three or four years ago, he took some loan from Accused No.1 for his business purpose and the same was returned within time. In the end of year 2000 accused No.2, Ex-Manager of M/s Bretton CR No. 9/13 Satpal Singh Bakshi Vs. State Page No. 3 CR No. 59/13 Mohd. Naseem Vs. B.S.Deshwal Woods Finlease Ltd had approached him to take some other loan and assured that he would get clear his loan amount immediately because of his good track record of payment of loan. Thereafter, accused No.2 had visited the complainant's house and repeated the above said offer, then the complaint said to accused No. 2 that he has the requirement of Rs.4 Lacs. Accused No.2 replied that he has to sign on two stamp papers i.e. 5 & 10 for application for sanctioning of the above said loan in favour of the accused No.1 and he also has to give a valuable surety and post dated cheque of that amount. After few days, the accused No.2 again visited at the complainant's house with two blank stamp papers i.e. Rs.5 & 10 and asked the complainant to sign. Thereafter, he had signed blank stamp paper on good faith. He had also given two-three visit to accused No. 2 who said that loan of Rs.4 Lacs has been sanctioned and asked for 36 past dated cheques of Rs.19,111/- each and a valuable surety. After few days, he had gone to the accused No.1 for loan purpose. He CR No. 9/13 Satpal Singh Bakshi Vs. State Page No. 4 CR No. 59/13 Mohd. Naseem Vs. B.S.Deshwal told that accused No.2 was on leave. Thereafter, he again visited accused No. 1 and he was told again that accused No. 2 was on leave. Accused No. 1 had assured the complainant that loan has been passed and his cheque of Rs.4 Lacs was ready but he could not give the payment in the absence of accused No. 2 because of the documents of his property, cheques, file and stamp papers were in possession of Accused No.2. After few days when the complainant visited accused No. 1 and enquired for above noted loan then accused No. 1 told him that accused No. 2 was fired from his service due to his fraudulent activities. Thereafter, he received a legal notice sent by Trilok Chand on 12.2.2002 where it has been written that a cheque bearing No. 219441 of Rs. 3,19,111/- was dishonored for insufficient funds. He has sent reply of that legal notice through his counsel. He received an intimation from his bank who informed him that three cheques amounting to Rs.5,19,111/-, Rs.3,19,111/-, Rs.1,19,111/- has been presented in his account which were dishonored due to CR No. 9/13 Satpal Singh Bakshi Vs. State Page No. 5 CR No. 59/13 Mohd. Naseem Vs. B.S.Deshwal insufficient funds. He was also threatened on call that he would file the complaint under Section 138 of NI Act for each and every dishonored cheque. He has again received a legal notice of the other cheques from Satpal Singh Bakshi to whom he did not know. He further submits that he has again visited the office of M/s Bretton Woods Finlease Ltd. on 2.7.2002 at 6:30p.m. then he was threatened with "main kuch nahi janta maine jo karna tha vo kar diya". He had gone to Police Station but the police had not recorded the FIR. During the course of investigation, police had interrogated Sh.B.S.Dehwal, Director of M/s Bretton Woods Finlease Ltd., Satpal Singh Bakshi of M/s Rose Marry Finance Company and persons related to their companies were interrogated. Since the complainant has stated in his complaint that he has signed 20 cheques of his account in Punjab National Bank and had given to the alleged Trilok Chand the employee of Bretton Woods Finlease Ltd. and the loan amount was not disbursed. Accused persons Trilok Chand and Satpal Singh filed CR No. 9/13 Satpal Singh Bakshi Vs. State Page No. 6 CR No. 59/13 Mohd. Naseem Vs. B.S.Deshwal complaint under Section 138 of NI Act which was pending in different courts and Sh. B.S.Deshwal used the documents of his property No. AB 430, Nabi Karim, Delhi as such police made all of them as an accused. Accused No. 1 and 3 had appeared and accused No. 2 has been declared as proclaimed offender. After hearing arguments, trial court vide order dated 12.12.2012 had ordered to frame the charge against Satpal Singh Bakshi and discharged the accused Bijender Singh Deshwal from the offence.
3. Against the impugned order, both the revisionist, who are accused as well as complainant had filed the revision petitions. Revisionist Satpal Singh Bakshi had aggrieved from the order stating that trial court had passed the illegal order. During the course of investigation it seems that the investigating officer has stated that the petitioner has obtained signatures of the complainant on the documents/ papers of the company, namely, M/s Rose Marry Investigation & Finance Ltd., though the said CR No. 9/13 Satpal Singh Bakshi Vs. State Page No. 7 CR No. 59/13 Mohd. Naseem Vs. B.S.Deshwal company was never registered and could not be floated. Trial court has completely failed to consider that even as per Section 18 of the N.I. Act, any discrepancy on the promissory note or cheques between words and figures then words are to be seem and it is only the amount written in words on the cheque shall prevail. In the present case the allegation of the petitioner that the figure 19,111/- has been converted into 49111/-is totally false and moreover there is no allegation in the complaint that there is forgery committed in the words. It is submitted that the revision petition be allowed and he be also discharged from the charge.
4. On the other hand, Ld. Addl. PP for the State as well as the complainant's counsel had submitted that it is the whole conspiracy hatched by B.S. Deshwal, Trilok Chand, Satpal Singh Bakshi, present revisionist who had used the property papers as well as used the cheque given on the pretext of getting sanction of the loan amount.
5. I have heard the arguments at bar and gone through the CR No. 9/13 Satpal Singh Bakshi Vs. State Page No. 8 CR No. 59/13 Mohd. Naseem Vs. B.S.Deshwal record. It is a fact that Trilok Chand an ex-employee of Bretton Woods Finlease Ltd has obtained twenty cheques as well as property papers on the pretext of getting sanctioned loan from the complainant. It is also the fact that three cheques have been used by Trilok Chand and the cheques are of same series which Satpal Singh Bakshi had used and given notice of dishonour of the cheques. During the investigation, it has also come on record that Satpal Singh Bakshi has not given any proof of sanction of the loan amount. There is discrepancy in the word as well as figure, therefore, there is strong presumption of collusion of the revisionist Satpal Singh Bakshi in conspiracy to cheat the complainant. Complainant had categorically stated that he did not know Satpal Singh Bakshi. Accused Trilok Chand since proclaimed offender has taken the cheques as well as property documents on the pretext of sanction of the loan.
6. In view of the above facts, I find no merits in the revision petition filed by Satpal Singh Bakshi, hence the revision petition CR No. 9/13 Satpal Singh Bakshi Vs. State Page No. 9 CR No. 59/13 Mohd. Naseem Vs. B.S.Deshwal stands dismissed.
7. Now, take up the revision petition filed by the complainant Mohd. Naseem who is also aggrieved with the order passed by the ld. MM whereby ld.MM has discharged B.S. Deswal Director of Bretton Woods Finlease Ltd. It is a matter of fact that Trilok Chand was an ex-employee of Bretton Woods Finlease Ltd. It was the allegation of the complainant that Trilok Chand, an ex-employee of the company has taken twenty cheques as well as property papers on the pretext of getting sanction the loan of Rs.Four lacs. Neither the loan was sanctioned rather than the cheques were mis-used and the property documents were used though the property documents were found registered in the name of complainant. There is strong possibility of conspiracy hatched between these three persons of cheating the complainant. One had used the property papers while the other had used the cheques.
8. In view of the above discussions, the revision petition CR No. 9/13 Satpal Singh Bakshi Vs. State Page No. 10 CR No. 59/13 Mohd. Naseem Vs. B.S.Deshwal bearing No. 09/13 filed by Satpal Singh Bakshi is dismissed and revision petition bearing No.59/13 filed Mohd. Naseem is allowed. Respondent B.S. Deswal be also charged for the offence for which he has been charge sheeted. TCR alongwith a copy of this order is sent back to trial court. Revision files are consigned to record room.
Announced in open court On 17th May 2014 (ATUL KUMAR GARG) Addl. Sessions Judge-03 (Central)/ Delhi CR No. 9/13 Satpal Singh Bakshi Vs. State Page No. 11 CR No. 59/13 Mohd. Naseem Vs. B.S.Deshwal CR No. 9/13 Satpal Singh Bakshi Vs. State CR No. 59/13 Mohd. Naseem Vs. B.S.Deshwal 17.05.2014 Present: Sh. Atul Srivastava, Ld. Addl. PP for the State.
Vide my separate common order announced, the revision petition bearing No.09/13 filed by appellant Satpal Singh Bakshi is dismissed and revision petition bearing No.59/13 filed by appellant Mohd. Naseem is allowed. Respondent B.S. Deswal be also charged for the offence for which he has been charge sheeted. TCR alongwith a copy of this order is sent back to trial court. Revision files are consigned to record room. A copy of this order is placed in each of the file.
(ATUL KUMAR GARG) Addl. Sessions Judge-03 (Central)/ Delhi.
17.05.2014 CR No. 9/13 Satpal Singh Bakshi Vs. State Page No. 12 CR No. 59/13 Mohd. Naseem Vs. B.S.Deshwal