Delhi High Court
Dharmendra Prasad Singh & Anr vs State Of Nct Of Delhi & Anr. on 17 July, 2018
$~42
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Decided on: 17th July, 2018
+ CRL.MC. 1461/2016 & Crl.M.A.6234/2016
DHARMENDRA PRASAD SINGH & ANR...... Petitioners
Through: Mr.Vishwajit Singh, Advocate with
Ms. Ridhima Singh & Mr. Vijaya
Singh, Advocates
versus
STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Ravi Nayak, APP for the State
Mr. Suneet Bhardwaj, Advocate for
R-2.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
ORDER (ORAL)
1. The present petition was filed invoking jurisdiction of this
court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
(Cr.P.C.) seeking quashing of the summoning order passed on
09.12.2015 by the Metropolitan Magistrate on the complaint case
(CC No.194/1/14) presented by the second respondent. The
complaint case was submitted by the second respondent (the
complaint) alleging offence under Section 420 of the Indian Penal
Code, 1860 (IPC) having been committed by the petitioners herein.
2. The complainant had, inter alia, alleged that he had earlier
lodged a report with Station House Officer (SHO) of Police Station
Tilak Marg on 27.08.2014 on which no action was taken. The
magistrate called for a report from the police as to the action taken
on the said complaint and thereafter took cognizance and held pre-
summoning inquiry. Upon consideration of the evidence thus
adduced in the said preliminary inquiry, she found grounds to
proceed against the petitioners and issued summons by a detailed
reasoned order passed on 09.12.2015, which is sought to be assailed
by the petition at hand.
3. The complainant is a non-resident Indian (NRI) describing
himself as an eye surgeon, Balrampur (UP) being his native place,
he presently being based in London. He alleged that the first
petitioner being the Maharaja (royalty) of Balrampur had
approached him and his family to take the initiative of serving the
local people by developing a good hospital. According to him, a
company named Balrampur Medical Institute and Research Center
Limited was formed and got registered on 21.07.2005 with the Delhi
residential address of the petitioners being the registered office in
which, at the instance of the petitioners the complainant and
members of his family invested huge amounts for developing of
buildings, infrastructure, equipments, etc. It is the allegation of the
complainant that the petitioners had misused for personal gain a
land admeasuring 12.5 acres of the company, failing to account for
the agricultural income accruing therefrom by not depositing the
same in the company account. He alleged that on 14.03.2013 one
B.K. Singh with certain other persons including a person described
as Col. Bhandari had forcibly taken over the building of the institute
developed in Balrampur. It is also, inter alia, alleged that he has
been cheated of the amount of Rs.60,02,053/- by various acts of
commission and omission. During the course of hearing, reference
was also made to a "collusive" suit (Suit No.65/2012) which had
been instituted by the first respondent impleading his own son and
certain others as the defendants wherein a compromise decree was
obtained in terms of which the registered sale deed dated 18.04.2006
of the land which was subject matter of the dispute between the
parties was got cancelled fraudulently behind the back of the
complainant.
4. The prime argument of the petitioners before this court is that
the complaint has been wrongly entertained by the court of
Magistrate in Delhi, all the acts of commission or omission alleged
to have been committed having occurred in Balrampur U.P.
Reliance is placed on Y. Abraham Ajith & Ors. vs. Inspector of
Police, Chennai & Anr., (2004) 8 SCC 100.
5. Having heard the learned counsel on both sides and having
gone through the record, this court finds no substance in the above
plea, inasmuch as there are allegations of several acts having been
committed within the local areas over which the court of
Metropolitan Magistrate in Delhi exercises jurisdiction within the
meaning of Section 178(d) Cr.P.C., such acts inclusive of the very
fact that the company named Balrampur Medical Institute and
Research Center Limited was formed and got registered in New
Delhi on 21.07.2005.
6. It was the argument of the counsel for the petitioner that the
allegations in the complaint are false and motivated. In proceedings
under Section 482 Cr.P.C. it is not possible to address questions of
facts. The criminal case in which the petitioners have been
summoned as accused is bound to be tried as a warrant case based
on private complaint and consequently the petitioners will have
ample opportunities to bring on record their version, even at the
stage of pre-charge evidence.
7. Reserving the defences raised by the petition at hand which
may be agitated during the trial before the court of Magistrate, this
court declines to interfere at this stage of the process.
8. The petition is dismissed.
R.K.GAUBA, J.
JULY 17, 2018
vk
