Delhi High Court
State vs Ramesh Chand Kapoor on 30 August, 2012
Author: Manmohan
13
$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.M.C. 1369/2010 & CRL.M.A. 5514/2010
STATE ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Pawan Sharma, Standing Counsel
(Crl.) with Mr. Sahil Mongia,
Ms. Priyanka Kapoor and Ms. Richa
Sharma, Advocates.
Insp. Anil, EOW, Crime Branch.
versus
RAMESH CHAND KAPOOR ..... Respondent
Through: None.
% Date of Decision: 30th August, 2012
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN
JUDGMENT
MANMOHAN, J : (Oral)
1. Despite a pass over, none is present for respondent.
Accordingly, this Court has no other option, but to proceed ahead with
the matter.
2. Present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
challenging the order dated 10th February, 2010 passed by the
Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi in FIR No.
590/97, whereby the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate has
directed the State to separately register cases on behalf of each victim
who has been cheated by the respondent. The relevant portion of the
impugned order passed by the Additional Chief Metropolitan
Magistrate is reproduced hereinbelow:-
".....Inspector CBT who have filed the charge sheet is
directed to separate the documents in respect of each
separate offence so that the trial may proceed further in
conformity with law...."
3. The facts of the present case are that a number of investors have
alleged that they have been cheated by Ramesh Financial Corporation
inasmuch as cheques issued by the said Corporation for maturity
amount have been dishonoured on the ground of „insufficient funds‟.
4. Mr. Pawan Sharma, learned Standing Counsel (Criminal) for
State contends that the impugned order is liable to be set aside as all
the twenty-five investors have been similarly cheated by the
respondent-accused in continuation of the same transaction. He
further states that it would be practically impossible to register
separate FIRs on behalf of each investor. He contends that this would
cause not only problems for the investigating agencies, but would also
result in overburdening the Courts.
5. Having heard the learned Standing Counsel for State, this Court
is of the view that there is merit in the submissions advanced by the
State.
6. Upon a perusal of the papers, this Court is of the view that in
pursuance to one single conspiracy, the respondent-accused has
deceived a large number of investors.
7. In fact, the Supreme Court in S. Swaminathnam vs. State of
Madras, AIR 1957 SC 540 has held as under:-
"7. On behalf of the appellant Abu Bucker it was
contended that there has been misjoinder of charges on
the ground that several conspiracies, distinct from each
other, had been lumped together and tried at one trial.
The Advocate for Swamirathnam, however, did not put
forward this submission. We have examined the charge
carefully and find no ground for accepting the contention
raised. The charge, as framed, discloses one single
conspiracy, although spread over several years. There
was only one object of the conspiracy and that was to
cheat members of the public. The fact that in the course
of years others joined the conspiracy or that several
incidents of cheating took place in pursuance of the
conspiracy did not change the conspiracy & did not split
up a single conspiracy into several conspiracies. It was
suggested that although the modus operandi may have
been the same, the several instances of cheating were not
part of the same transaction. Reliance was placed on the
case of Sharpurji Sorabji v. Emperor, AIR 1986 Bom
154(A) and on the case of Choragudi Venkatadari, In re.,
ILR 83 Mad 502(B). These cases are not in point. In the
Bombay case no charge of conspiracy had been framed
and the decision in the Madras case was given before S.
120-B, was introduced into the Indian Penal Code. In
the present case, the instances of cheating were in
pursuance of the conspiracy and were therefore part of
the same transaction.
(emphasis supplied)
8. Accordingly, this Court is of the view that all the investors-
complainants have been allegedly cheated in pursuance to a single
conspiracy and which constitutes the same transaction.
9. Consequently, the aforesaid direction given by the learned
Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi in the
impugned order dated 10th February, 2010 is set aside and the present
petition is allowed.
MANMOHAN, J
AUGUST 30, 2012
js
