Delhi District Court
Sh. R.S. Gautam vs Sh. Chattar Singh on 11 July, 2009
1 Crl. Rev. No.: 13/2008
IN THE COURT OF MS. MADHU JAIN, ADDITIONAL
SESSIONS JUDGE-03,NORTH, DELHI.
Crl. Rev. No.: 13/2008
CC No.: 87/01
U/s : 467/471/420 IPC
P.S. - Kashmiri Gate
Concerned/Successor Court:
Sh. Ajay Pandey, MM, Delhi
IN THE MATTER OF :-
Sh. R.S. Gautam
S/o Sh. Rumia
R/o House No. 321 A/5
Village- Munirka
P.O. J.N.U.
New Delhi-110 067
...................Petitioner
Vs.
Sh. Chattar Singh
S/o Late Sh. Ganga Dass,
R/o House No. T-403, AC,
Village-Munirka,
P.O.- J.N.U
New Delhi-110 067
.........Respondent
ORDER
2 Crl. Rev. No.: 13/2008
1. This is a revision filed by the petitioner against the order dated 23.01.2008 passed by the Ld. MM whereby the Ld. MM discharged the respondent from charges U/s 467/471/420/ 193 IPC read with section 107/114/120-B IPC.
2. The brief facts of the case as per the petitioner are that he is the local president of Buddhist Society of India, Branch no.4 at village Munirka, New Delhi- 110 067. The Buddhist Society of India had established a Budh Vihar (Buddhist Temple) at village Munirka which is controlled, owned and managed by its local branch no.4, Shri R.S. Gautam, the petitioner. This Budh Vihar was assessed to house tax in MCD's record since 1979 in the name of Buddhist Society of India. In the original complaint one of the respondent i.e. respondent no.1 became Buddhist Monk and went abroad and returned in India in June 1985 after about 25 years. He visited the Budh Vihar to attend the weekly prayer and signed Prayer Register. Thereafter, he became greedy and had an evil eye on Budh Vihar and desired to grab it with the help of 3 Crl. Rev. No.: 13/2008 respondent nos. 2 to 15 mentioned in the petitioner's original complaint. He threatened to take forcible possession of the Budh Vihar and the petitioner filed Civil Suit against them which is now pending and is fixed for final orders. The respondent no.1 in the original complaint realised that he will not win the civil case and, therefore, he took help of all the respondents as to how to grab the temple. They prepared a false and self styled proceedings stated to be attended by the adult members of Munirka Village and passed a resolution to change the name of Buddhist Society of India to " Munirka Budh Vihara Trust"
regarding which the respondent no.4 ( in the original complaint) wrote a letter dated 7th October 1985 to MC, House Tax Department and appended some false proceedings and letters. MCD substituted the name of 'Munirka Budh Vihar Trust' in place of Buddhist Society of India in their house tax record and thereafter, they moved an application before the Registrar of Societies and Firms, Delhi to register a society under the name and style of "Munirka Budh Vihar Trust" and appended therewith 4 Crl. Rev. No.: 13/2008 the false and fake documents. The complainant and office bearers of Buddhist Society of India had apprehended foul play and informed the Registrar of Societies and Firms accordingly but the Registrar of Societies paid a lip service only and issued a registered letter calling the petitioner to attend the office . This registered letter was received by the petitioner on 5th April 1986 and the petitioner attended the Registrar's Office on 7th April 1986 and come to know that society has already been registered. He made representations to cancel the society registered but the later was intimated vide letter dated 25th February 1987 that the Registrar has no power to cancel the registered society. According to the petitioner, the respondents have intentionally made fabricated and false documents so as to use the same as genuine. By misrepresentation, fraud and preparing false documents, the respondents have succeeded in getting the society registered.
3. According to the petitioner, after filing of the complaint and after the pre summoning evidence, the court summoned 5 Crl. Rev. No.: 13/2008 only accused no.4 i.e. the respondent in the present revision. Thereafter at the stage of framing of charge, the court also discharged the respondent i.e. accused no.4 in the original complaint vide order dated 23.01.2008. It is against this order that the present revision has been filed.
4. I have heard the Ld. counsel for the parties and have carefully perused the record.
5. Ld. counsel for the petitioner argued that the impugned order is wrong and without any application of mind and the letters were forged by the respondent with dishonest intention and the accused were not authorized to write the letter to MCD and get the property of the society mutated in the name of 'Munirka Budh Vihar Trust'. Civil suit regarding this property is also going on and the Ld. Civil Judge has already cancelled the registration of the society and the respondent therefore, is not liable to be discharged and the order 23.1.2008 passed by Ld. MM is bad in the eyes of law.
6. On the other hand, Ld. counsel for the respondent 6 Crl. Rev. No.: 13/2008 argued that there is no prima facie evidence against the respondent and there is no error apparent in the order passed by the Ld. MM on the face of the record.
7. Careful perusal of the impugned order dated 23.01.2008 shows that the Ld. MM has discussed all the submissions raised by both the parties. He has observed that the complainant stated himself to be the President of local branch of Buddhist Society of India Ltd. and in his statement recorded in pre charge evidence he has stated that he became President in the elections in the year 1997 and elections are required to be held every year but there is no evidence to show that after those elections, any elections took place of the society and the petitioner was elected President in the relevant year also. The petitioner also examined 3 witnesses in pre charge evidence and the main plea of the petitioner is that the letter written by the respondent to the MCD is a forged letter as the society was registered only in 31.03.1986 whereas the letters were written prior to that. Ld. MM has rightly observed that 7 Crl. Rev. No.: 13/2008 dispute between the parties is more of the civil nature and the criminal proceedings against any of the parties in the present case is not the appropriate remedy.
8. It has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pepsi Food Ltd. & Ors. Vs. Special Judicial Magistrate 1998, 5 SCC that :
"Summoning of an accused in a criminal case is a serious matter. Criminal law cannot be set into motion as a matter of course. It is not that the complainant has to bring only two witnesses to support his allegation in the complaint to have the criminal law set into motion. The order of the Magistrate summoning the accused must reflect that he has applied his mind to the facts of the case and the law applicable thereto. He has to examine the nature of the allegations made by the complainant and the evidence both oral and documentary in support thereof and decide would that be sufficient for the complainant to succeed in bringing charge home to the accused. The magistrate has to carefully scrutinize the evidence brought on record and may himself put questions to the complainant and to his witnesses to elicit the answers to find out the truthfulness of the allegations is prima facie committed by all or any of the accused".8 Crl. Rev. No.: 13/2008
9. From the averments of the petitioner, it is clear that the dispute between the parties is regarding the registration of their respective societies and to gain hold and control of the Temple. According to the petitioner, the forgery has been committed by the respondent in writing letter to the MCD but for the purpose of imputation of criminal charges against a person, there must be some dishonest intention. Though at the time of framing of charge, the court is only required to see the prima facie evidence but in the present case, the dispute between two parties seems to be purely of civil nature and merely because the respondent had written letter to the MCD on behalf of his society, it cannot be said that he has committed some forgery. Ld. MM has also observed that CW3 has stated that the applicant also filed the minutes of meeting signed by as many as 74 persons in support of his application for change of name of society and on the basis of that application only, the name of the society was changed by MCD to 'Munirka Budh Vihar Trust'. How and where, in such circumstances, there was dishonest 9 Crl. Rev. No.: 13/2008 intention on the part of the respondent, has no where been explained by the petitioner. It has been further observed by the Ld. MM that petitioner himself has admitted that there is a dispute between the parties regarding chairmanship of of the Budhist Society of India between two persons and when the petitioner himself has admitted that Mr. Ashok Mukundrao Ambedkar was also a chairman of the society, in such circumstances, an act of the respondent to move application for registration of society cannot be said to be an act of dishonest intention. Moreover, merely moving the application for mutation before the MCD does not make the respondent liable for offences U/s 464/471/420 IPC.
10. After perusal of the record and the order of the Ld. MM, I do not find any infirmity or liiegality in the same. There is no infirmity or illegality in the order of the Ld. MM dated 23.01.2008. As such, the revision filed by the petitioner is dismissed. The order dated 23.01.2008 passed by the Ld. MM is upheld as it does not suffer from any infirmity or illegality. 10 Crl. Rev. No.: 13/2008 There shall be no order as to cost. Copy of this order alongwith trial court record be sent back. Revision file be consigned to the Record Room.
(MADHU JAIN) Additional Sessions Judge-3 (North) Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi.
11.07.2009 Announced in the open court today i.e. on 11.07.09