Order 3

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: 14 Ct. Cases / 806/2024
Jai Prakash Vermaa Vs. Amit Sethi
21.11.2024
Proceedings are being conducted through hybrid mode.
Regular Stenographer of this court is absent today.
Previous Reader of this court has not handed over the charge.
Present: Mr Akshay Rao, Ld. counsel for the applicant/
complainant alongwith applicant complainant.
Matter is listed for arguments on application under
section 156 (3) of CrPC.
Arguments heard.
Put up for order at 4 PM.
(Dr. Raj Kumar Singh)
Judicial Magistrate First Class-05/
Central Delhi/21.11.2024
At 04:00 PM.
Present: None.
ORDER
1. The complainant, Jai Prakash Verma, has filed the present application under
Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC), seeking
directions to the police to register an FIR against the respondents, namely, Dr.
Amit Sethi and Dr. Satish Kumar Sethi, for alleged offences under Sections
403, 406, 420, 120B, 506, and 507 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). The
-- 1 of 3 --
complainant has also alleged caste-based discrimination and physical assault,
coupled with threats and intimidation, by the respondents.
2. The complainant asserts that he was employed by the respondents from June
2006 to December 4, 2021. He alleges discrepancies in his salary payments,
wrongful termination from service, and criminal misappropriation of a
significant sum of 7,00,000/-, purportedly deducted as savings without his	₹
consent. Despite lodging a complaint at Police Station (PS) Roop Nagar on
February 24, 2024, and forwarding the same to senior police officials, no action
was initiated by the police, prompting this application.
3. The respondents, on the other hand, contend that the complainant was
employed from September 16, 2011, to November 30, 2021, and that he had
voluntarily stopped attending work after being reminded to repay loans taken
from the diagnostic center. They assert that the allegations of misappropriation
and criminal misconduct are false and arise out of an employment dispute that
has already been adjudicated by the Labour Court in Case No.
S&E/03/ND/2022, which was dismissed on February 7, 2024.
4. The status report filed by the police indicates that the core allegations relate to
non-payment of dues and discrepancies in salary, which are primarily civil in
nature. The report concludes that no criminal misconduct by the respondents
could be substantiated during the inquiry, and that the Labour Court has already
adjudicated the matter.
5. Having heard the arguments of learned counsel for the complainant and
perused the records, including the status report submitted by the police, this
Court observes that the primary allegations of the complainant pertain to non-
payment of salary and deductions, which appear to be contractual in nature.
The claim of misappropriation of salary savings, although couched in terms of
criminal breach of trust, does not
prima facie disclose the essential ingredients
of Sections 406 or 420 IPC, as there is no material to substantiate fraudulent
inducement or entrustment of property by the respondents with dishonest
intention.
-- 2 of 3 --
6. As regards the allegations of caste-based slurs and physical assault on
December 4, 2021, the complainant has failed to produce any prima facie
evidence to substantiate these claims. No medical records or independent
witness statements have been placed on record to corroborate the allegations of
physical assault. The delay in lodging the police complaint, coupled with the
absence of any substantial evidence, further undermines these allegations.
7. The law governing applications under Section 156(3) CrPC, as laid down in
M/s Skipper Beverages Pvt. Ltd. v. State and
Subh Karan Luharuka v. State,
mandates that the complainant must demonstrate the necessity of police
investigation and the inability to gather evidence independently. In the present
case, the allegations primarily relate to employment disputes, for which
documentary evidence such as salary slips, employment records, or contracts
are already within the complainant’s reach, negating the need for police
intervention.
8. In view of the above, this Court is of the considered opinion that the present
application under Section 156(3) CrPC lacks merit. The complainant is at
liberty to pursue appropriate remedies in a civil court if advised. Additionally,
if any fresh and cogent evidence supporting the allegations of criminal
misconduct comes to light, the complainant may approach the police or this
Court with such material.
9. Accordingly, the application under Section 156(3) CrPC is hereby dismissed.
10. Put up for consideration of the complaint u/s 200 Cr.PC on 23.01.2025.
(Dr. Raj Kumar Singh)
Judicial Magistrate First Class-05/
Central Delhi/21.11.2024
-- 3 of 3 --