Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: 16th September, 2025
VEENA SHARMA
W/o Late Sh. Shyam Sunder R/o H.No.712, Katra Abasia, 6-Tooti, Pahar Ganj, New Delhi-110005. .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Khagesh B Jha, Ms. Shikha Sharma Bagga, Mr. Ankit Mann, Ms. Jyoti Shokeen and Ms. Amisha Dhariwan, Advocates.
JUDGMENT
1. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI Through SHO Paharganj Police Station Paharganj, District Central, Delhi.
2. JYOTI R/o 1206, Sangatrashan, Paharganj,
3. OM PRAKASH R/o 1206, Sangatrashan, Paharganj, Both R-2 and 3 also at: C/o H.No.4591, Gali Dal Mandi, Main Bazar, Pahar Ganj, New Delhi-110005......Respondents Through: Mr. Rahul Tyagi, ASC for the State. CORAM: HON'BLE MS.
JUSTICE NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA JUDGMENT (oral)
1. A Writ Petition under Article 226 and 227 Constitution of India read with Section 528 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 has been filed on behalf of the Petitioner/Veena Sharma to challenge the Order dated 09.02.2021 of learned ACMM whereby the Complaint under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as “Cr.P.C”) has been dismissed. The said dismissal was subsequently upheld by the learned ASJ in the Revision Petition vide Order dated 28.04.2025.
2. Briefly stated, it is the case of the Petitioner/Complainant that she is a widow and the Respondent No.2/Jyoti was her neighbour, who was known to the Complainant. After the demise of her husband, the Respondent Nos.[2] and 3 (accused persons) started visiting her. During one of such visits, the Complainant informed her that she was surviving on the savings of her husband. The Respondents induced her to give a sum of Rs.90,000/- as a friendly loan on 18.09.2014 for a period of four months @ interest rate of 12% per annum.
3. Respondent Nos.[2] and 3 repaid Rs.33,300/- in five years, but has refused to repay the remaining amount. The Complainant asserted that the Respondents have deliberately and intentionally not repaid the loan; instead are harassing her physically and mentally to the extent that she has fallen seriously ill and has become a patient of hypertension. Whenever she visited the Respondents to request for return of her money, they turned violent and abused her. The Respondents have kept four pet dogs at their home to terrorize the people so that no one would come asking for repayment.
4. The Complainant further asserted that the Respondents have cheated many other ladies in the area in a similar manner. The Complaint dated 25.02.2018 was made to the SHO, but no action was taken. Hence, she filed the Complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C read with Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.
5. In the pre-summoning evidence, the Complainant examined herself as CW[1] and reiterated the averments made in the Complaint. She also examined CW[2] Sonu and CW[3] Prince who deposed that Respondents had taken money from different people including the Complainant and has not repaid. She further deposed that whenever the Petitioner went to the house of Respondents, she was abused and the repayment of money was not made.
6. The learned ACMM in the impugned Order dated 09.02.2021 dismissed the Complaint by observing that essentially it is a civil dispute and no criminal offence is disclosed therein. This Order was upheld by the learned ASJ vide impugned Order dated 28.04.2025.
7. The impugned Order has been challenged in the present Petition on the grounds that expecting a victim to gather and submit details of other victims for similar offence, is abrogation of fundamental right under Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India.
8. The testimony of the Complainant and other victim has not been appreciated in the right perspective, which has led to further victimization of the Complainant. Merely because other victims have not dared to file the Complaint the Respondents, cannot be a ground to dismiss the genuine Complaint of the Petitioner.
9. It is submitted that the assistance of Police is required as many Complaints have been filed against the Respondents, which can be collected only by the Police. The remedy available with the Complainant is only criminal proceedings and no civil Suit is maintainable.
10. The Complaint and the testimony of the witnesses have disclosed cognizable offences of criminal breach of trust and cheating. It is not a simple case of breach of Contract, but the Respondents are habitual offenders of cheating.
11. It is submitted that the Complainant has a right to choose the remedy to be availed by her. Furthermore, Respondent No.2 has already admitted before the IO that she had taken the loan, but had not stated any deadline to repay the same, which substantiates the intention of criminal breach of trust.
12. When the pressure from the lenders became high, the Respondent No.2 and 3 along with other family members, have changed their residence during the pendency of the proceedings, and their present location is not known to anyone. The new address of Respondent No.2 and 3 has been traced by the Petitioner to Dal Mandi.
13. It has also not been considered that not only has the Complainant been cheated and defrauded, but she has even been terrorized by the Respondent with the help of the pet dogs.
14. Hence, a prayer is made that the impugned Order be quashed and directions be issued for prosecution of Respondent No.2 and 3 thereby giving an opportunity of fair trial to the Complainant. Submissions heard and record perused.
15. The simple averments made in the Complaint are that the Complainant had extended a loan of Rs.90,000/- on the agreed rate of 12% per annum. The Respondents had paid Rs.33,330/-, but have failed to pay the balance amount. From the averments made in the Complaint, it is evident that it is a civil dispute where the loan taken by the Respondent No.2, has not been returned by her. Merely because she has allegedly adopted similar modus operandi with various other persons, cannot be a ground to conclude that she has committed breach of trust or has defrauded the Complainant.
16. It is purely a civil dispute for which the criminal proceedings cannot be initiated.
17. The learned ACMM vide Order dated 09.02.2021 has rightly observed it to be a civil dispute and dismissed the Complaint, which has been rightly been upheld by the learned ASJ vide Order dated 28.04.2025.
18. There is no merit in the present Petition which is hereby, dismissed and disposed of along with the pending Application(s).
JUDGE SEPTEMBER 16, 2025 va