Full Text
Translation output
"S $-34, 35, 36 & 46 HIGH COURT OF DELHI
CRL.M.C. 4928/2013
GULSHAN ARORA &ORS
Through;
CRL.M.C. 4928/2013
GULSHAN ARORA &ORS
Through;
VERSUS
STATE
Through:
Through:
CRL.M.C. 4929/2013
Through:
Through:
VERSUS
STATE
Through:
Through:
CRL.M.C. 4930/2013
Through:
Through:
VERSUS
Petitioners Ms. Kajal Chandra, Ms. Prachi Gupta, Ms. Renu Kuhar & Ms. Swati Sinha, Advocates with
Petitioner No. 1-in-person Respondent Ms. Nishi Jain, Additional Public
Prosecutor for State with SI Vehvendra, PS Seemapuri
Ms. Nishi Jain, Additional Public Crl.M.C.Nos.4928, 4929, 4930 & 4940 of 2013 Page 1
/ 2013:DHC:7447 STATE
Through:
Petitioner No. 1-in-person Respondent Ms. Nishi Jain, Additional Public
Prosecutor for State with SI Vehvendra, PS Seemapuri
Ms. Nishi Jain, Additional Public Crl.M.C.Nos.4928, 4929, 4930 & 4940 of 2013 Page 1
/ 2013:DHC:7447 STATE
Through:
CRL.M.C. 4940/2013
Through:
Through:
VERSUS
STATE
Through:
Ms. Nishi Jain, Additional Publie Proseeutor for State with SI
Swati Sinha, Advoeates with Ms. Nishi Jain, Additional Publie
Through:
Ms. Nishi Jain, Additional Publie Proseeutor for State with SI
Swati Sinha, Advoeates with Ms. Nishi Jain, Additional Publie
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
25.11.2013 Cr.M.A.No.17726/2013 in CrI.M.C.No.4928/2013 (ExemptionV
Cr.M.A.No.17728/2013 in CrI.M.C.No.4929/2013 (Exemption)
Cr.M.A.No.17730/2013 in CrI.M.C.No.4930/2013 (Exemption)
Cr.M.A.No.17764/2013 in CrI.M.C.No.4940/2013 (Exemption)
Allowed subject to all just exceptions.
Crl.M.C.No.4928/2013 & CrI.M.A.No.17725/2013 Crl.M.C.No.4929/2013 & Crl.M.A.No.17727/2013
Crl.M.C.No.4930/2013 & Crl.M.A.No.17729/2013 Crl.M.C.No.4940/2013 & Crl.M.A.No.17763/2013
Crl.M.C.Nos.49,28, 4929, 4930 & 4940 of 2013 Page 2
2^ Revisional Court vide order of6^^ September, 2013 upholds trial court's order directing petitioners to stand trial in FIRs
No.393/04, 423/04, 409/04 & 446/04 registered at Police Station, Seema Puri, Delhi. With the consent of learned counsel for parties the above-eaptioned four petitions directed against common impugned order of 6"" September, 2013 were heard together and are being disposed ofby this common order.
At the hearing, impugned order as well as trial court's order directing framing of charges against petitioners for the offence of cheating and in the alternative for the offence under Section under
Section 406/34 IPC, is assailed by learned counsel for petitioners by contending that Rajpal Bansal, who is one of the respondent- complainants is an accused in petitioners' FIR No.150/04 for the offences under Section 448/454/392/397/380/506/34 IPC. It was asserted by learned counsel for petitioners that other complainants/first-informants of these FIRs are the associates of aforesaid Rajpal Bansal and at the instance of Rajpal Bansal petitioners have been falsely implicated in these FIRs. It was submitted by learned counsel for petitioners that instant FIRs have been lodged to harass and pressurize petitioners to withdraw the allegations levelled in FIR No.150/04 against aforesaid Rajpal
Bansal and to extract money from petitioners. It was pointedly argued that no prudent person would lend ?3 lac or more in cash without obtaining any receipt and in the instant cases complainant party had purportedly handed over cash amount of ^16.5 lae in FIR
No.393/04 and cash of ?3 lae each in remaining three FIRs which
Crl.M.C.Nos.4928, 4929, 4930 &4940 of2013 Page 3 is unacceptable on the face ofitand so impugned order deserves to be quashed. The five reasons which prevailed with the learned revisional court to sustain trial court's order directing petitioners to face trial in the aforesaid FIR cases as culled out from the impugned order are as under:-
(i) The complainant and witnesses hadparted their money, the money invested will be doubled in five years instead of longerperiod being taken by otherinvestors.
(ii) The investors believed the petitioners that their money will be safe, whereas itwas discovered during investigation that
M/s Reliance Associate was unregistered under the law.
(in) The minute contentions advanced are appreciation of evidence which cannot be carried at the at the juncture of framing offormal charge, just there is no written receipt of amount paid, would not tantamount to discard the oral statements given by the complainant and others. In
Shakuntla Devi v. Sumit Kumar 1996(3)CCC 301 thatat the stage offraming of charge the court is not to evaluate or apprise the evidence to come to the conclusion that petitioner would ultimately getconvicted, the court isonly to satisfy that accused is involved in commission ofcrime and prima facie case does not mean proof, at the stage of framing ofcharge.
(iv) When there are two sets offacts are appearing, there is no flaw to frame charge in alternate as per Section 221 of
Cr.P.C. and Crl.M.C.Nos.4928, 4929, 4930 &4940 of2013 Pag^
(v) There is no flaw or illegality in the impugned order while making aprimafacie view on the basis ofmaterial on record that charge under Section 420/34 IPC (in alternate under
Section 406/34 IPC) is madeout.
Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-State had supported the impugned order to submit that aprima facie case against petitioners is made out and so these petitions deserve rejection.
The legal position regarding parameters which govern framing of charges as reiterated by Apex Court in Amit Kapoor v.
Ramesh Chander andAnother (2012) 9 SCO 460 are as under: -
"At the initial stage offraming ofa charge, the court is concerned not with proofhut with a strong suspicion that the accused has committed an offence, which, ifput to trial, couldprove him guilty. All that the courthas tosee is that the material on record and thefacts would be compatible with the innocence ofthe accused or not. The final test of guilt is not to be applied at thestage."
Upon hearing both the sides and on perusal ofthe impugned order, trial court's order and the copy ofthe charge-sheet, I find that merely because instant FIRs have been lodged in September, 2004 whereas FIR No.150/04 by mother of first petitioner is lodged in June, 2004 would not Justify scuttling the trial in these
FIR cases at its threshold as it is required to be tested at trial as to whether instant FIRs are counter-blast to the petitioners' FIRs or not. At this initial stage, it cannot be said that ingredients ofthe offence alleged are lacking. Before throwing out the case of
Crl.M.C.Nos.4928, 4929, 4930 &4940 of2013 Pagi^ r" complainant party, they are required to be given an opportunity to explainas to why they had purportedly given moneyto petitioners without obtaining any receipt. The suspicion about complicity of petitionerin commission of offence in question is strongenough to put petitioners on trial.
Finding no grave or palpable error in the impugned order, the above-captioned four petitions and applications are dismissed while refraining to comment upon merits of this case, lest it may prejudice either side at trial.
NOVEMBER 25, 2013 vn (SUNIL GAUR)
Judge CrI.M.C.Nos.4928, 4929, 4930 &4940 of 2013 Page 6
25.11.2013 Cr.M.A.No.17726/2013 in CrI.M.C.No.4928/2013 (ExemptionV
Cr.M.A.No.17728/2013 in CrI.M.C.No.4929/2013 (Exemption)
Cr.M.A.No.17730/2013 in CrI.M.C.No.4930/2013 (Exemption)
Cr.M.A.No.17764/2013 in CrI.M.C.No.4940/2013 (Exemption)
Allowed subject to all just exceptions.
Crl.M.C.No.4928/2013 & CrI.M.A.No.17725/2013 Crl.M.C.No.4929/2013 & Crl.M.A.No.17727/2013
Crl.M.C.No.4930/2013 & Crl.M.A.No.17729/2013 Crl.M.C.No.4940/2013 & Crl.M.A.No.17763/2013
Crl.M.C.Nos.49,28, 4929, 4930 & 4940 of 2013 Page 2
2^ Revisional Court vide order of6^^ September, 2013 upholds trial court's order directing petitioners to stand trial in FIRs
No.393/04, 423/04, 409/04 & 446/04 registered at Police Station, Seema Puri, Delhi. With the consent of learned counsel for parties the above-eaptioned four petitions directed against common impugned order of 6"" September, 2013 were heard together and are being disposed ofby this common order.
At the hearing, impugned order as well as trial court's order directing framing of charges against petitioners for the offence of cheating and in the alternative for the offence under Section under
Section 406/34 IPC, is assailed by learned counsel for petitioners by contending that Rajpal Bansal, who is one of the respondent- complainants is an accused in petitioners' FIR No.150/04 for the offences under Section 448/454/392/397/380/506/34 IPC. It was asserted by learned counsel for petitioners that other complainants/first-informants of these FIRs are the associates of aforesaid Rajpal Bansal and at the instance of Rajpal Bansal petitioners have been falsely implicated in these FIRs. It was submitted by learned counsel for petitioners that instant FIRs have been lodged to harass and pressurize petitioners to withdraw the allegations levelled in FIR No.150/04 against aforesaid Rajpal
Bansal and to extract money from petitioners. It was pointedly argued that no prudent person would lend ?3 lac or more in cash without obtaining any receipt and in the instant cases complainant party had purportedly handed over cash amount of ^16.5 lae in FIR
No.393/04 and cash of ?3 lae each in remaining three FIRs which
Crl.M.C.Nos.4928, 4929, 4930 &4940 of2013 Page 3 is unacceptable on the face ofitand so impugned order deserves to be quashed. The five reasons which prevailed with the learned revisional court to sustain trial court's order directing petitioners to face trial in the aforesaid FIR cases as culled out from the impugned order are as under:-
(i) The complainant and witnesses hadparted their money, the money invested will be doubled in five years instead of longerperiod being taken by otherinvestors.
(ii) The investors believed the petitioners that their money will be safe, whereas itwas discovered during investigation that
M/s Reliance Associate was unregistered under the law.
(in) The minute contentions advanced are appreciation of evidence which cannot be carried at the at the juncture of framing offormal charge, just there is no written receipt of amount paid, would not tantamount to discard the oral statements given by the complainant and others. In
Shakuntla Devi v. Sumit Kumar 1996(3)CCC 301 thatat the stage offraming of charge the court is not to evaluate or apprise the evidence to come to the conclusion that petitioner would ultimately getconvicted, the court isonly to satisfy that accused is involved in commission ofcrime and prima facie case does not mean proof, at the stage of framing ofcharge.
(iv) When there are two sets offacts are appearing, there is no flaw to frame charge in alternate as per Section 221 of
Cr.P.C. and Crl.M.C.Nos.4928, 4929, 4930 &4940 of2013 Pag^
(v) There is no flaw or illegality in the impugned order while making aprimafacie view on the basis ofmaterial on record that charge under Section 420/34 IPC (in alternate under
Section 406/34 IPC) is madeout.
Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-State had supported the impugned order to submit that aprima facie case against petitioners is made out and so these petitions deserve rejection.
The legal position regarding parameters which govern framing of charges as reiterated by Apex Court in Amit Kapoor v.
Ramesh Chander andAnother (2012) 9 SCO 460 are as under: -
"At the initial stage offraming ofa charge, the court is concerned not with proofhut with a strong suspicion that the accused has committed an offence, which, ifput to trial, couldprove him guilty. All that the courthas tosee is that the material on record and thefacts would be compatible with the innocence ofthe accused or not. The final test of guilt is not to be applied at thestage."
Upon hearing both the sides and on perusal ofthe impugned order, trial court's order and the copy ofthe charge-sheet, I find that merely because instant FIRs have been lodged in September, 2004 whereas FIR No.150/04 by mother of first petitioner is lodged in June, 2004 would not Justify scuttling the trial in these
FIR cases at its threshold as it is required to be tested at trial as to whether instant FIRs are counter-blast to the petitioners' FIRs or not. At this initial stage, it cannot be said that ingredients ofthe offence alleged are lacking. Before throwing out the case of
Crl.M.C.Nos.4928, 4929, 4930 &4940 of2013 Pagi^ r" complainant party, they are required to be given an opportunity to explainas to why they had purportedly given moneyto petitioners without obtaining any receipt. The suspicion about complicity of petitionerin commission of offence in question is strongenough to put petitioners on trial.
Finding no grave or palpable error in the impugned order, the above-captioned four petitions and applications are dismissed while refraining to comment upon merits of this case, lest it may prejudice either side at trial.
NOVEMBER 25, 2013 vn (SUNIL GAUR)
Judge CrI.M.C.Nos.4928, 4929, 4930 &4940 of 2013 Page 6
JUDGMENT