Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Integrated with over 4 crore judgments and laws — designed for legal practitioners, researchers, students and institutions

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Delhi District Court

Prithipal Singh vs . The State C.R. No. 114/13 on 22 July, 2013

                                          1
                   Prithipal Singh Vs. The State   C.R. No. 114/13

IN THE COURT OF MS. RAJ RANI MITTRA: ASJ - 03 : SOUTH - EAST, 
                       SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI



                                               Criminal Revision No. 114/2013



Prithipal Singh,
S/o Sh. Bhajan Singh, 
R/o Village Nijjar,
Post Rayya,
District Amritsar, Punjab.


                                                                    ..... Revisionist
                                  V  E R S U S


The State (NCT of Delhi)
                                                              ..... Respondent


          DATE OF INSTITUTION: 24.05.2013
          DATE OF RESERVING THE ORDER: 22.07.2013
          DATE OF ORDER: 22.07.2013


                                   O R D E R

The present revision petition U/s 397 read with 401 Cr. P.C. has been filed by the revisionist against the order dated 26.02.2013, passed by Sh. Mukesh Kumar, Ld. ACMM, Saket Courts, New Delhi, in case FIR No. 705/05 U/s 406/420 IPC P.S. Kotla Mubarakpur, New Delhi, whereby the Ld. Trial Court has dismissed the protest petition filed by the revisionist. 2 Notice of the petition was given to the State / respondent and 2 Prithipal Singh Vs. The State C.R. No. 114/13 Trial Court record was summoned.

3 It is submitted that by Ld. Counsel for the revisionist that revisionist had lodged FIR alleging that he was duped by the accused Depender Saroha for more than Rs. 6 Lakhs on the pretext of sending the revisionist to Newzeland but never kept his commitment. That the revisionist has paid the said amount in cash as well as through demand draft to the accused. That the investigation in the case was carried out by Crime Branch and the cancellation report was filed by the IO in the Court. That the revisionist filed protest petition against the cancellation report filed by the prosecution, which was dismissed by Ld. Trial Court. 4 It is submitted by Ld. Counsel for the revisionist that the impugned order is against the spirit of law and has been passed without applying judicial mind. That Ld. Trial Court has ignored to appreciate the facts and circumstances and documents on record in its true colour. That accused has cheated the revisionist of his hard earned money to the tune more than Rs. 6 Lakhs. That Ld. Trial Court has failed to appreciate the fact that the accused has mischievously and cunningly played a fraud upon the revisionist who hails from outside Delhi by taking benefit of his innocence and faith on the accused. That Ld. Trial Court has failed to appreciate the fact that the revisionist had proved that he had made payment to the accused Depender Saroha but the accused had failed to prove as to how and from what source he had arranged and made the payment to the revisionist.

3

Prithipal Singh Vs. The State C.R. No. 114/13 5 Ld. Addl. PP for State / respondent has vehemently argued against the petition and has submitted that the Ld. Trial Court has passed the impugned order after due consideration of the entire facts and circumstances of the case. That the revision petition has no merits. It is, therefore, prayed that the revision petition may be dismissed with costs.

6 I have heard arguments and carefully perused the material placed before me.

7 IO of the case had placed on record the receipts which bear signatures of the complainant / revisionist and were sent to CFSL and as per the expert opinion the signatures on the receipt are signatures of the complainant / revisionist. It was also admitted that by the complainant / revisionist that the receipts were signed by him in the office of accused. Further, the complainant / revisionist has not alleged any forgery. As the complainant / revisionist himself is not denying his signatures on the documents nor is he alleging any forgery on the part of the accused, remedy available to him was suit for recovery of the amount. It is also important to note that a case is pending against the complainant for stabbing the accused vide case FIR No. 407/05 U/s 326/452/506 IPC. Ld. Trial Court has also rightly pointed out that there is no plausible reason as to why complainant / revisionist remained silent for about 5/6 years if he had not received the alleged amount. Ld. Trial Court has correctly observed that the complainant / revisionist wants to keep the matter pending just to pressurize the accused for the case pending against complainant / revisionist vide FIR No. 407/05 and has rightly dismissed the 4 Prithipal Singh Vs. The State C.R. No. 114/13 protest petition of the complainant / revisionist and accepted the closure report filed by the IO. It is found that the order dated 26.02.2013, passed by Sh. Mukesh Kumar, Ld. ACMM, Saket Courts, New Delhi is well reasoned and based on thorough discussion of facts of the case and there is no ambiguity in the provisions of law or its application by Ld. Trial Court. I find no merits in the revision and impugned order does not require any interference. The revision petition is accordingly dismissed. 8 The Trial Court record be sent back alongwith a copy of the order. File be consigned to record room after due compliance. Announced in the open Court on 22 day of July, 2013 nd (RAJ RANI MITTRA) Addl. Sessions Judge­03/SE Saket Courts, New Delhi.