Order 6

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: -1-
36Ct Cases2480/2022
SURYA VEER SINGH RAWAT Vs.NARESH AGGARWAL
AND ORS.
(Parliament Street)
19.02.2024
Present: Sh. Yoginder Uniyal, Ld. Counsel for complainant
through VC.
Matter is fixed for order on application u/s. 156(3)
Cr.P.C. filed on behalf of the complainant.
It is the case of the complainant that he wanted to
expand his business and was in need of money for which he
approached accused no.1 who was known to him for past 5-6
years. Accused no.1 introduced the complainant to accused no.2
to 4 and informed him that they were employees of SBI,
Parliament street and were authorized to grant loan to the
customers. Accused no.1 also informed the complainant that
since the latter has insufficient documents and his income tax
returns are undervalued as such the complainant will have to pay
certain amount to accused no.2 to 4 so that they may convince
their senior officials of the bank to provide loan to the
complainant. It has been alleged that accused persons mis-
represented themselves as the staff of SBI, Parliament Street and
induced the complainant to pay a sum of Rs.36.50 lakhs to them
so that they could provide loan from SBI, Parliament Street to the
complainant. It has further been alleged that the accused persons
showed various forged and fabricated documents to convince the
complainant that they were working in SBI, Parliament Street.
It has further been submitted that out of said amount of
-- 1 of 3 --
-2-
Rs.36.50 lakhs, a sum of Rs.19 lakhs was transferred in the bank
account of accused no.4 Anil Sharma through NEFT on
27.07.2020. A further sum of Rs.10.50 lakhs was transferred in
the account of Vipin Gupta through NEFT and a further sum of
Rs.1.50 lakhs was paid to accused no.2 Gurpreet Kaur in cash.
Further, the balance amount of Rs.5.50 lakhs was paid to accused
no.2 on 20.08.2020 in cash. Copies of account statement of
complainant have been filed on record.
It has further been alleged that the accused persons
could not provide the loan to the complainant and only refunded
Rs. 10.50 lakhs to the complainant. It has also been alleged that
the accused persons threatened the complainant of dire
consequences when he approached them demanding back his
money. 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 none of the
transactions pertaining to the alleged offence has been committed
within the jurisdiction of PS Parliament Street.
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
-- 2 of 3 --
-3-
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
of the complainant, identity of accused persons is also known to
the complainant. The complainant has also filed his bank account
statement in support of the allegations made. Furthermore,
evidence is not required to be collected at this stage. Therefore,
there appears to be no requirement for any police investigation in
the present case. Even if it appears desirable that police
investigation be conducted in the present case, then section 202
Cr.P.C. can be resorted to at later stage. Hence, present
application u/s. 156(3) Cr.P.C. is dismissed.
Put up for pre-summoning evidence on 23.04.2023.
(Anamika)
MM-06/PHC/ND/19.02.2024
-- 3 of 3 --