Final Order 1

Order Details: COPY OF JUDGMENT
Pdf Text: IN THE COURT OF SH. HARJYOT SINGH BHALLA
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-04
PATIALA HOUSE COURTS, NEW DELHI
IN THE MATTER OF:
HARINDER SINGH VS. THE STATE & ORS
CNR No. DLND01-010872-2022
Cr. Rev. No. 660/2022
Harinder Singh
S/o Shri Dhan Singh
R/o H. No. 121, Fatehpur Beri,
New Delhi-110074
Office at 161-A/9, Kishangarh Car Market,
First Floor (Fitness One Gym)
Main Mahipalpur Vasant Road,
New Delhi ...Revisionist
Versus
1. The State (NCT of Delhi)
2. Sachin Gupta, Director
S/o Shri Rohtas Gupta
M/s Adroits Delhi Construction Pvt. Ltd.
R/o K-705/6 Ward No.6,
Near Peer Baba Ka Mazaar
Mehrauli, New Delhi-110030
3. Manish Gupta, Director
S/o Shri Rohtas Gupta
M/s Adroits Delhi Construction Pvt. Ltd.
R/o K-705/6 Ward No.6,
Near Peer Baba Ka Mazaar
Mehrauli, New Delhi-110030 ...Respondents
Cr. Rev. No. 660/2022 Page 1 of 4
-- 1 of 4 --
Date of Institution: 13.12.2022
Date of decision : 13.01.2023
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
1. This is a revision petition directed against the order
dated 05.09.2022 passed by the Ld. MM-02, Patiala House
Courts, New Delhi.
2. TCR perused. Arguments advanced by Sh. Girish
Kumar Manhas, Ld. Addl. PP and Sh. G.S. Tiwari, Ld. Counsel
for revisionist have been heard.
3. The allegations made by the complainant/revisionist
against the accused persons are that the accused no. 1 Sachin
Gupta and no. 2 Manish Gupta are the Directors of M/s Adroits
Delhi Construction Pvt. Ltd and are responsible for day to day
affairs and its business and the accused no. 1 and no. 2
introduced and allured the complainant/revisionist that they were
having very good business plan. Accused no. 1 and no. 2 had
further shown an agreement dated 16.10.2018 that they have a
Leave and License Agreement in respect of fully constructed
building situated at Property bearing No. 4, Green Park, New
Delhi for the purpose of running the activities of Hotel business
and as such, believing upon their assurance and promises,
accused no. 1 and no.2 and the complainant executed a
Memorandum of Understanding dated 22.10.2018 on certain
terms and conditions. Complainant was informed that he was
joining the said business of hotel activities as one of the partner
at the ratio of 25% and as such the complainant invested a huge
amount of Rs.20,00,000/- on 22.10.2018 through RTGS, a sum of
Cr. Rev. No. 660/2022 Page 2 of 4
-- 2 of 4 --
Rs. 35,000/- on 15.11.2018, a sum of Rs. 50,000/- on 06.12.2018,
which is reflecting in the bank statement jointly maintained by
the complainant and the wife of the complainant, namely, Smt.
Indresh with Canara Bank. Further payment of Rs. 4,00,000/-
was also made on 29.10.2018 through RTGS vide HDFC Bank.
The accused no. 1 and no. 2 further demanded Rs. 2 Lakhs and
the said amount of Rs. 2 Lakhs was paid by the complainant in
cash to them. After receiving the above said amounts, the attitude
and behavior of the accused no. 1 and no. 2 totally changed
towards the complainant/revisionist and they started avoiding the
complainant and therefore, the complainant was constrained to
approach them and enquired about the business activities for
which they had taken the said amount. The complainant asked
the accused no. 1 and no. 2 either to return his hard earned
money or to act and comply with the terms conditions of
Memorandum of Understanding, as he had not received a single
penny from the accused no. 1 and no. 2. It is further stated that
after much persuasions and efforts made by the complainant, the
accused no. 2 Manish Kumar Gupta had signed and issued a
cheque bearing no.750577 dated 01.03.2019 for Rs.10 Lakhs
drawn on Yes Bank Ltd. in favour of the wife of the complainant
with assurance that the said cheque would be honoured on its
presentation and the accused no. 1 and no. 2 further transferred a
sum of Rs. 2 lakhs into joint account of the complainant and his
wife. When the wife of the complainant deposited the said
cheque with her banker for encashment, the said cheque got
dishonoured with remarks insufficient funds.
4. Complaint does not contain any specific averment
that any forgery has been committed. It merely states that money
Cr. Rev. No. 660/2022 Page 3 of 4
-- 3 of 4 --
was paid into the personal account of accused Sachin pursuant to
an agreement entered into with M/s Adroits Delhi Construction
Pvt. Ltd. There is no explanation as to why when the agreement
was being entered into with a registered company, the money was
paid to the accused in his personal account.
Needless to say that the company has not been
arrayed as an accused in the complaint or the present revision
petition.
In these circumstances, considering the nature of
allegations being made, I see no infirmity in the order passed by
the Ld. MM in choosing to record the statement of complainant,
on oath, on the allegations and holding an inquiry, if required, in
the facts and circumstances of the present case.
With these observations, no interference is required
in exercise of revisional power.
Revision petition is accordingly disposed off. TCR
be returned.
Revision file be consigned to Record Room.
Dictated in the open court (Harjyot Singh Bhalla)
on 13.01.2023 ASJ-04, New Delhi
13.01.2023
Cr. Rev. No. 660/2022 Page 4 of 4
-- 4 of 4 --