ROMESH SHARMA Vs. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION (CBI)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY way of present petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) Petitioner (accused) has prayed that the order dated 4th September, 2010 passed by the Trial Court, whereby application under Section 216 Code of Criminal Procedure of the Petitioner for modification/amendment of the charges has been dismissed, be set aside.

(2.) INITIALLY , FIR No. 799/98 was registered at Police Station Hauz Khas on the complaint of one Shri H. Suresh Rao (hereinafter referred to as "complainant"). Subsequently, investigation was transferred to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and a case bearing No. RC 1(S) 98/STF/CBI under Section 120 -B read with Sections 323/365/386/392/395/412/420 and 506 IPC was registered. In nutshell, complainant alleged in the FIR that he was owner of a helicopter bearing No. VT -EAP Model No. BELL -47, GS. He had given this helicopter to the Petitioner on hire. Subsequently, Petitioner, by exercising undue influence, pressure and coercion, made the complainant sign a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) dated 14th May, 1996 and certain other documents regarding transfer of the said helicopter in his favour. Later on, when complainant sent his employees to take back the helicopter, they were threatened with dire consequences. Threats were also extended to the complainant through goons.

(3.) IT appears that in the year 2002 complainant had filed a civil suit bearing number 866/2002 in this Court praying therein that the aforesaid MOU and other related documents of transfer of the said helicopter be cancelled and he be declared owner of the helicopter. Decree for mandatory injunction thereby directing the Petitioner to transfer the helicopter in the name of the complainant was also prayed for. However, the said suit has been dismissed on 11th January, 2008 on account of failure on the part of complainant to lead evidence despite opportunities granted to him. The operative portion of the order passed by a Single Judge of this Court in the said suit reads as under: