Ramesh Kumar Jain vs State Nct Of Delhi & Anr.
2016 Latest Caselaw 1334 Del

*   IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+   CRL.M.C. 4341/2012 & Crl.M.A. 20217/2012


                                  Date of Decision : February 19th, 2016

    RAMESH KUMAR JAIN                                    ..... Petitioner
               Through                  Mr.Mohit Mathur, Sr. Adv. with
                                        Mr.Pradeep Sharma, Adv., Mr.Badar
                                        Mahmood, Adv. & Mr.Praman
                                        Mathur, Adv.

                         versus

    STATE NCT OF DELHI & ANR.                ..... Respondent
                  Through  Mr.Vinod Diwakar, APP for the State
                           SI Kailash Chand, Sec.-1, EOW.
                           Mr.Ravinder Kumar, Adv. for R-2.

           CORAM:
           HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.TEJI

    P.S.TEJI, J.

1. The present petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter shall be referred to as the "Cr.P.C.") read

with Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the

petitioner for quashing of summoning order dated 26.10.2012 in FIR

No.804/2000, under Sections 420/468/471/120-B of the Indian Penal

Code (IPC), registered at Police Station Connaught Place and all the

proceedings in pursuance thereto pending in the Court of learned

Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Patiala House Court, New

Delhi.

2. Factual matrix, emerges from the petition, is that the petitioner

Ramesh Kumar Jain is the Chairman & Managing Director of M/s

Pashupati Spinning and Weaving Mills Ltd. In the year 1993-94, the

said company proposed to launch a pharmaceutical project and

therefore, required a drug licence. For obtaining a drug licence, the

company was required to have a chemist/drug licence holder on its

employment. Therefore, the services of complainant Mr.L.D. Pandey

were availed and it was agreed that after successful commencement of

the project, Mr.L.D. Pandey would be absorbed as an employee of the

company. The said project could not commence and the same was

abandoned in 1994.

3. On 13.12.2000, the complainant Sh. L.D. Pandey made a

complaint to the police to the effect that Ramesh Kumar Jain had not

paid the agreed dues on account of engaging the services of the

complainant as Pharmaceutical Consultant. It was alleged that on

17.02.1998, Ramesh Kumar Jain called the complainant to his office

on the pretext of settling the dues, but the complainant was forced to

sign papers. No dues endorsement was taken on the company letter

head from the complainant. During initial inquiry, it was revealed

that the papers bore forged signatures of the witnesses.

4. On the basis of complaint made, the FIR in question was

registered. After investigation, charge sheet was filed in the Court

against petitioner/accused Ramesh Kumar Jain, co-accused E.Mohan

Das who was working as Personal Assistant to the petitioner-herein

and one Tota Ram Swami. Accused Ramesh Kumar Jain was kept in

column no.2. Vide order dated 26.10.2012, Ramesh Kumar Jain has

also been summoned as an accused by the Trial Court.

5. Arguments advanced by the learned Senior Counsel for the

petitioner, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State as well

as learned counsel for the respondent no.2 have been heard.

6. Argument advanced by the learned Senior Counsel for the

petitioner is that during investigation of the case, the matter was

settled between the parties on 06.09.2001 and the complainant

furnished his affidavit to this effect in Crl.M.C. 3500/2001 which was

withdrawn on account of the law prevailing at that time. It is further

argued that the complainant succeeded in extorting a sum of Rs.11

lacs from the petitioner and never turned up to withdraw the matter. It

was on the demand of the complainant that an experience certificate

was issued to him and that too on humanitarian ground to secure some

job. One Mr.Tota Ram Swamy promised the petitioner to help in

reaching the settlement and getting it endorsed by some officer of the

Labour Department. It is further argued that about 12 years has

passed since the filing of the charge sheet and yet the charges have

not been framed.

7. In support of the above contentions, learned Senior Counsel for

the petitioner has relied upon judgment in the case of Madhavrao

Jiwajirao Scinidia & others v. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre &

others (1988) 1 SCC 692 in which it was observed that the legal

position is well-settled that when a prosecution at the initial stage is

asked to be quashed, the test to be applied by the Court is as to

whether the uncontroverted allegations as made prima facie establish

the offence or not. It is also for the Court to take into consideration

any special features which appear in a particular case to consider

whether it is expedient and in the interest of justice to permit a

prosecution to continue. This is so on the basis that the Court cannot

be utilised for any oblique purpose and where in the opinion of the

Court chances of an ultimate conviction is bleak and, therefore, no

useful purpose is likely to be served by allowing a criminal

prosecution to continue, the Court may while taking into

consideration the special facts of a case also quash the proceeding

even though it may be at a preliminary stage. On similar point,

judgment in the case of State of Haryana & others v. Bhajan Lal &

others 1992 Supp. (1) SCC 335 has also been relied upon.

8. Further argument advanced by the learned Senior Counsel for

the petitioner is that there is an inordinate delay of 12 years on the

part of the investigating agency without any reasonable clarification.

On this point, judgment in the case of Pradeep Goyal v. Enforcement

Department MANU/DE/9866/2007 has been relied upon in which the

proceedings were quashed on the ground of inordinate delay. Next

judgment relied upon is in the case of Vakil Prasad Singh v. State of

Bihar 2009 Cri.L.J. 1731 in which the Hon'ble Apex Court quashed

the prosecution because the prosecution had failed to show

exceptional circumstances which could possibly be taken into

consideration for condoning the inordinate delay of more than two

decades.

9. On the contrary, argument advanced by the learned counsel for

the complainant/respondent no.2 is that the petitioner is one of the

perpetrators of the crime. Forged documents have been made by the

petitioner along with co-accused persons in furtherance of the

criminal conspiracy. Some of the forged documents pertain to

government officials. The allegations against the petitioner are matter

of trial for which evidence is available. Petitioner Ramesh Kumar

Jain had obtained the services of the complainant but failed to clear

the dues, therefore, the complainant was forced to lodge the

complaint.

10. The main contention of the petitioner is that the complainant

had entered into settlement with the petitioner for which earlier a

quashing petition bearing Crl.M.C. 3500/2001 was filed in this Court.

If for the sake of arguments it is taken as correct that earlier the

quashing petition was filed for quashing the FIR in question, perusal

of order dated May 10, 2002 passed in Crl.M.(M) No.3500/2001

shows that the same was dismissed as withdrawn. No explanation has

been given by the petitioner as to why he remained silent for the last

about 13½ years. The ground taken by the petitioner is that the

complainant kept on extorting money from the petitioner and so far he

has extorted Rs.11 lacs from the company of the petitioner. No

complaint has been placed on record by the petitioner to substantiate

this plea that any extortion was made by the complainant.

11. Perusal of record shows that the date of incident of the present

case is 01.05.1994 and the FIR in question was registered on

13.12.2000. The charge sheet was filed in the Court on 28.11.2002

and the petitioner was summoned on 26.10.2012. More than 13 years

have elapsed but the charge in the present case has not yet been

framed due to the delaying tactics adopted by the petitioner. It

appears that the petitioner is delaying the trial on one pretext or the

other. Even otherwise, the pleas raised by the petitioner are matter of

defence and trial and the petitioner would have ample opportunity to

put the same before the Trial Court.

12. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the

considered opinion that no case is made out for quashing the FIR in

question and no interference is warranted in the present case under

Section 482 of Cr.P.C.

13. Consequently, the present petition is dismissed.

14. Application Crl.M.A. 20217/2012 is also disposed of.

(P.S.TEJI) JUDGE FEBRUARY 19, 2016 dd