9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (6) TMI 1365X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... st petition as well as the revision petition filed by him before the concerned Courts. The learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate and subsequently the learned Additional Sessions Judge in the revision petition, have examined the said grounds and thereafter passed detailed orders. It is pertinent to note that the petitioner herein had transferred the insurance of the vehicle himself to some other vehicle and remained silent about the issue for four years and had not paid instalments after November, 2002. One of the ground taken by the petitioner herein, is that he had made a payment of Rs. 1,19,426/-, after the surrender of the bus. It has been rightly observed by the learned ASJ, that even if it is presumed that the abovementioned payment was made, the same will not make out a case under Sections 420/406 of the IPC, in view of the fact that petitioner himself had surrendered the bus. This Court does not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order passed by the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate vide order dated 25.03.2010, in FIR No. 613/2007, registered at P.S. New Friends Colony and subsequently order dated 21.04.2011, passed by the learn ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Delhi-110 015. The chasis was purchased in Rs. 6,30,745/-(Rupees Six Lacs Thirty Thousands Seven Hundred and Forty Five only) . 3. That the bus chasis no. : was UBA-032183, Engine no. : VBH-158763 and bus was subsequently registered with the Delhi Transport Authority and bus registration no: DL-1P-A-7622 was allotted . The copy of registration certificate is being filed and marked as annex. A. 4. That the cost of the chasis was Rs. 6,30,745/-+ Rs. 5,30,000/-was spent on the manufacturing and fabrication of the body of bus as such after the body the bus , had costed total Rs. 11,60,745/-. Besides Rs. 11,60,745/-, the complainant spent Rs. 50,000/-on Insurance and Road Tax paid to the Delhi Transport Authority and Insurance company as such the cost of the bus further enhanced from Rs. 11,60,745/-to Rs. 12.10,745/-. 5. That out of Rs. 12,10,745/-(Rupees Twelve Lacs Ten Thousand Seven Hundred and Forty Five only) , the complainant got financed Rs. 5,00,000/-from Ashok Leyland Finance Ltd. , Bhagria House, 43, Community Centre, New Friends Colony, New Delhi-110065, from the accused persons and the balance of Rs. 7,10,745/-was paid and spent by complainant. 6. That the compla ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... anded over one letter , on which the date was mentioned 02.12.2002 , but it was given to complainant on 24.12.2002 in the letter they stated that the vehicle bearing registration no. DL-lP-A-7622 has been surrendered on 02.12.2002 as per clause. 8 (i) of the agreement , your account is showing an overdue of Rs. 2641/-excluding additional finance charges , you are advised to settle the contract in full as per clause 8(i) by paying the settlement figure of Rs. 3,12,268/-(Rupees Three Lacs Twelve Thousand Two Hundred and Sixty Eight only), as we intent to terminate the contract. However, please note that this amount should be paid before 02.12.2002 and failure to pay the same will compel us to take necessary actions to realize the amount value. Please also note that the vehicle is held with us at your risk and responsibility . The copy letter dated 02.12.2002 given to complainant on 24.12.2002 is being filed and marked annex. B. 11. That as per the contents of letter dated 02.12.2002, given to complainant, on 24.12.2002, the full and final over dues against the complainant was Rs. 3,12,268/-which was to be paid in the remaining monthly installments, but the officials of Ashok Leyl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f any other person. But, the complaint and prayers of the complainant fell on deaf ears. 16. That the complainant bus was withheld by the accused persons without any reasons and even after payment of Rs. 1,19,426/-, the accused persons have not returned the bus of the complainant and illegally and unlawfully they have taken away the source of livelihood of the complainant and his family by taking advantage of 82 years of age and due to that extortion , cheating and tortuous , illegal and unlawful acts of the accused persons , the complainant suffered from cardiac attack and remained hospitalized for about 12 days in Dayanand Medical College and Hospital in Ludhiana (Punjab) and spent Rs. 2,00,000/-on his treatment. The copy of medical papers showing the history cardiac ailment is being filed and marked as annex. G. 17. That in December 2006, the complainant received a summon from the court along with a copy of complaint under Section 138 N. I. Act, then the complainant gone through the contents of the complaint and through the contents of para no. 4, the complainant came to know that his vehicle has been sold by the Ashok Leyland Finance Ltd. , on 4.7.2003 for a sum of Rs. 1, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ty Centre, New Friends Colony, New Delhi-110 065, has cheated the complainant , misappropriated his bus , they have filed a false and frivolous complaint by taking advantage of the old age and blank signature on blank cheques, by entering into criminal conspiracy in furtherance of their common intention to extort money from the complainant . Therefore, the accused persons have committed the offences of extortion, criminal breach of trust, cheating and forgery and cheating by fabricating the forged and false document punishable under Section 384/406/420/467/ 468/471/120-B/34 IPC. 22. That the complainant has reported the matter to the SHO of PS : New Friends Colony , Commissioner of Delhi Police , DCP-South District New Delhi, DCP (Crime and Railway) , Delhi, on 19.04.2007 . But, the police has not taken any action on the complaint of the complainant against the accused persons . Despite the cognizable offences have been prima facie committed by the accused persons . The copy of the complaints given by the complainant to the police authorities on 19.04.2007 is being filed and marked as Annex. I. 23. That all the offences by the accused persons have been committee in their offi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aken to godown of the accused company by Sharwan Kumar in which Prem Lal Sharma was also sitting. Godown is at Najafgarh. The vehicle was not left at the office of company at new Friends Colony. And Prem Lal Sharma handed over the receipt of the deposit of the bus to complaint at his home. 2) That the vehicle was actually surrendered and that is why the insurance cover of remaining period of bus in question was sought to be transferred on another bus, if there would have been any intention of plying the bus in question in future then the insurance cover would not have been transferred. 3) DTC stand fee was paid from the year 2002 ant not for subsequent period. There was no reason for deposit of bus for CNG fitting with finance company and finance company does not do any such kind of activity. 5). That after Dec 2003 no police complaint was made by complaint till the receiving of summon in u/s 138 N I Act matter in the year 2007. Meaning thereby he had not complaint against accused company. vi. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order passed by the learned ACMM, the petitioner herein, filed a revision petition bearing C.R. No. 24/2010, before the Court of Additional Session Jud ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... which was given to them for the purpose of CNG fitting and thereby cause wrongful loss to him and wrongful gains to themselves and thereby also committed offence of cheating. Police during investigation have found that the said bus was surrendered to the accused persons voluntarily by the complainant and a letter in this regard was written by the complainant himself. Further from other circumstances that is the complainant letter to the insurance company to transfer the insurance policy from the said bus to his other vehicle and non payment of the installments after November 2002 corroborates the facts that the complainant himself surrendered the said bus to the accused persons. The complainant version that he deposited the bus stand fee to the DTC is also falsified because that bus stand fee was of the period before the surrendering of the said vehicle to accused persons. Complainant in protest petition had not even denied that no such letter of surrender was written by him. Further complainant had not filed any civil or criminal case despite being aggrieved of misappropriation and cheating from the hands of accused persons since December 2002 till the receiving of the summons of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the learned ASJ dated 21.04.2011 as well as order passed by the learned ACMM dated 25.03.2010, the petitioner has preferred the present petition. 4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the learned Additional Sessions Judge as well as the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate have erred in not appreciating that the Investigating Officer in his cancellation report has made wrong statements. 5. It was further submitted that the Courts below have erred in holding that the present complaint/FIR was filed by the petitioner as a counter blast of the complaint filed under Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, by respondent no. 2/company, herein. 6. It was submitted that the Investigating Officer in his cancellation report has wrongly mentioned that the petitioner could not produce any receipt of the amount of Rs. 1,19,426/-, which was paid to respondent no. 2/company, on 25.02.2003. 7. It was submitted that if the story of surrender of the bus mentioned herein above is accepted, then why did respondents no. 2 and 3 accept the aforesaid amount in the month of February, 2003. 8. It was further argued that the learned Cour ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the move before the High Court was really on application for revision of the order of the Magistrate releasing the truck. That is exactly what is prohibited under Section 397(3) Cr.P.C. Merely by saying that the jurisdiction of the High Court for exercise of its inherent power was being invoked the statutory bar could not have been overcome. If that was to be permitted every revision application facing the bar of Section 397(3) of the Code could be labelled as one under Section 482. We are satisfied that this is a case where the High Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the revision. The appeal is allowed and we set aside the order of the High Court. The Order of the Magistrate as affirmed by the Session Judge is upheld. 14. In Surender Kumar Jain v. State Another, , a leaned Single Judge of this Court, held as under: 5. The issue regarding filing of petition before the High Court after having availed first revision petition before the Court of Sessions has come up before the Supreme Court and this Court repeatedly. While laying that section 397(3) Cr.P.C. laid statutory bar of second revision petition, the courts have held that High Court did enjoy inherent power ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sions of sub-section (3) that this bar is limited to the same person who has already chosen to go either to the High Court or to the Sessions court seeking a remedy and that it does not apply to the other parties or persons.' 22. The Bombay High Court has taken the same view in the case Inayatullah Rizwi v. Rahimatuallah Ors. 1981 CriLJ 1398 and observed that : We are, therefore, of the view that a revision to the High Court would be tenable at the instance of a party who is unsuccessful before the Sessions Judge, or who is aggrieved by his order. In other words, a concurrent finding of the Sessions Judge and of the Courts below become final, but when the Sessions Judge reverse the order of the Court below in revision the defeated party is not precluded from moving the High Court. The consensus of judicial opinion as can be seen supports only this view.' 16. In Pooja Walia v. State and Anr., 2011 SCC OnLine Del 2462, a learned Single Judge of this Court has held as under: 8. At the very outset, I must state that the present petition is in essence a second revision filed by the petitioner raising the same set of grievances which were raised by her before the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ity or propriety of any finding, sentence or order, recorded or passed, and as to the regularity of any proceedings of such inferior court. The object of the provision is to set right a patent defect or an error of jurisdiction or law. There has to be well-founded error which is to be determined on the merits of individual case. It is also well settled that while considering the same, the Revisional Court does not dwell at length upon the facts and evidence of the case to reverse those findings. 18. It is pertinent to note that the abovementioned FIR, bearing No. 613/2007, registered at P.S. New Friends Colony was with respect to commission of offence under Section 406/420 of the IPC. It was observed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge in the impugned order dated 21.04.2011, that the petitioner herein did not dispute his own letter of surrender of vehicle and also that a specific finding by way of evidence collected by the Investigating Officer has come on record that the bus was surrendered to respondent no. 2 and 3 by the petitioner himself. It is further observed that the grounds taken by the petitioner in the present petition are the same that had been taken in the pro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
