Interim Order 3

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: Ct No.991/2023
Pradeep Kumar vs. Pankaj Kaushik Page No. 1/4
45Ct Cases991/2023
PRADEEP KUMAR Vs. PANKAJ KAUSHIK & ORS
(Parliament Street)
02.02.2024
Present: Sh. Durgesh Sharma, Ld. Counsel for complainant.
Matter is fixed for orders on application under Section
156(3) Cr.P.C. filed on behalf of the complainant.
It is the case of the complainant that he is a bank
employee of SBI, Industrial Estate, Delhi road and also a
member of the SBI Staff Association. It has been submitted that
the accused persons are office bearers of Trade Union, SBI Staff
Association registered under the Trade Union’s Act, 1926. The
complainant has further submitted that he is an acted member of
the Union and pays a subscription fee of Rs.50/- per month and
there are about 6000 members of the union who contribute
towards the general fund of the Union. It has further been
submitted that the aforesaid contribution is made in the form of
monthly subscription deductible from the salaries of the Union
members and gets credited in general fund bank account bearing
No. 10820056739 located at Personal Banking Branch, SBI, New
Delhi. The purpose of the trade union as submitted by the
complainant in his complaint is to work for the welfare of its
members and to espouse their cause before different forums for
which the abovesaid fund has been created. It has been argued
that the objects on which the general funds may be spent has
-- 1 of 4 --
Ct No.991/2023
Pradeep Kumar vs. Pankaj Kaushik Page No. 2/4
been clearly laid down in Section 15 of the Indian Trade Union
Act which prohibits the Trade Union or its bearers to spent the
fund by transferring the money in the personal account of the
associations office bearers.
It has been alleged by the complainant that the
accused persons namely Ajay Jaggi and Sunil Chugh had issued a
cheque of Rs.1,99,070/- from the SBI Union Account for
transferring money to personal SBI account number thereby
misusing their official position. It has further been alleged that on
11.05.2022, Rs.10,00,000/- was transferred by accused Pankaj
Kaushik and Ajay Jaggi from the SBI Union account in the
personal account of the accused Sunil Chugh thereby violating
the terms of Trade Union Act, 1926. Details of the cheques issued
for the transfer have been mentioned in the complaint filed
before this court. Furthermore, it has also been alleged by the
complainant that he moved a written complaint to the office
bearer of the association on 25.01.2022, 04.04.2022 and
08.10.2022 but no action was taken. The grievance of the
complainant is that despite commission of cognizable offence,
police failed to register FIR against the accused.
ATR has been filed in which it is stated that the
account statement of the association from 11.09.2020 to January,
2023 has been analyzed. It has further come in the ATR that
during the aforesaid inquiry, accused Ajay Jaggi has stated that
the alleged transaction of Rs.1,99,070/- dated 22.11.2021 was
-- 2 of 4 --
Ct No.991/2023
Pradeep Kumar vs. Pankaj Kaushik Page No. 3/4
made to purchase computers for official purpose. As submitted
by the Inquiry officer, the accused also produced the certified
copies of the bills pertaining to the articles purchased for the
association. It has also been found during inquiry that the articles
are available in the office of the Chief Secretary of the SBISA,
Sh. Sanjeev Kumar. It has also emerged from the inquiry that the
General Secretary i.e. accused Ajay Jaggi has purchased a flat in
Dehradun for the interest of the association as per Rule No.4(h)
of Chapter No.1 of the Constitution of the Association. Apart
from the aforesaid transaction, there is also a mention of
retirement gift being given to one of the accused Sunil Chugh
from the Union’s money. No cognizable offence was found in the
ATR filed.
It has been held in Skipper Beverages Pvt. Ltd. vs.
State 2002 Crl.LJ NOC 333 (Delhi) that where complainant is in
possession of evidence to prove his allegations, then it is not
necessary that FIR should be ordered to be registered.
Furthermore, in Mohd. Salim vs. State in Crl.M.C. No. 3601/09
decided on 10.03.2010 by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court, it was
held that FIR should be ordered to be registered only in cases
where police assistance is required for collecting any evidence or
for investigation. Similar view has been taken by the Hon'ble
Delhi High Court in Subh Karan Luharuka vs. State Crl. M.C.
No. 6122-23 of 2005 decided on 09.07.2010.
In the present case, the facts are within the knowledge
-- 3 of 4 --
Ct No.991/2023
Pradeep Kumar vs. Pankaj Kaushik Page No. 4/4
of the complainant, identity of accused persons is also known to
the complainant. Furthermore, evidence is not required to be
collected at this stage as the complainant has already mentioned
about the relevant account numbers and cheque numbers used in
the alleged transactions. The bank statements of accounts of the
Union and the proposed accused persons are a matter of record
for which FIR is not required to be registered. Therefore, there
appears to be no requirement for any police investigation in the
present case. Further, any inquiry if required can be made at a
later stage under Section 202 Cr.P.C. Hence, present application
under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. is dismissed.
Put up for PSE on 30.04.2024.
(ANAMIKA)
MM-06/ND/PHC/New Delhi
02.02.2024
-- 4 of 4 --