Sumit Arora v. State of Not of Delhi & Ors

1. The petitioner filed a complaint before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate being CC No.384/1/14 titled as'Sumit Arora vs. State ofNOT of Delhi & Ors' along with an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. seeking directionto the SHO,PS ConnaughtPlace,New Delhito investigate the complaint dated 20^*^ November, 2012. The said application was dismissed bythelearned Metropolitan Magistrate vide order dated 15^^ July, 2015 which was challenged in a revision petition.

2. The learned Additional Sessions Judge noting that there was no sufficient cause to condone the delay, dismissed the application for condonation of delay and the revision petition being barred by limitation. Hence the present petition. CRL.M.C.2215/2016 Page[1] of[3] 2016:DHC:9040

3. The allegations ofthe petitioner in the complaint are that the accused persons approached him for investing money to start chain ofrestaurants by the name of'Soya Express' and 'Handi Chadiyan Di'. The petitioner was promised that he would be paid profit out ofthe commission,for which two agreements dated 3E' August, 2011 and 29^*^ December, 2011 were executed. Despite having taken ?35 lakhs from the petitioner, the two restaurants were not started and the accused even refused to refund the money.

4. Considering the facts required to prove the offence were within the knowledge ofthe petitioner and no investigation thereon was required to be done to collect the evidence, the learned Trial Court dismissed the application under Section 156(3)Cr.P.C.granting liberty to the petitionerto lead pre-summoning evidence.

5. Agreeing with the finding of the learned Additional Sessions Judge that sufficient cause to condone the delay was not explained as the order of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate dated 15^*^ July,2015 had been uploaded on the website ofPatiala House Court along with the other orders and after the said date presence ofthe petitioner's counsel was also recorded in the th order sheet,thus he could not have shown ignorance ofthe order dated 15 July,2015,this Court notes that even on merits no fault can be found with the order of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate noting that the evidence was in possession ofthe petitioner and the complaint could be proceeded as per the complaint case procedure and no direction for registration ofthe FIR was required. CRL.M.C.2215/2016 Page2of[3]

6. Consequently, finding no merit in the present petition, the same is dismissed. However, in case the petitioner so wishes he can lead the presummoning evidence before the learned Trial Court on the date fixed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate.

MUKTA GUPTA,J. OCTOBER 21,2016 'vn'