VIJAY NARAIN PANDEY Vs. JAI PRAKASH OJHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Sec. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C) is directed against the order dtd. 6/1/2014, by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi, whereby, the order of summoning has been passed against the petitioners for commission of offence punishable under Ss. 405/420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short 'IPC').

(2.) The facts of the case are that the respondent No.2 / complainant filed a complaint under Sec. 200 of the Cr.P.C. against the petitioners and one Sita Ram Pandey for commission of offences under Ss. 405/406/420/120B of the IPC. As per the complaint, the main allegation against the accused, therein, was of deceiving the complainant in paying a sum of Rs.5.0 Lakh by giving false assurance of providing him built-up house/flat when his intention from the very beginning was to cheat and defraud innocent depositors like the complainant. The complainant filed an application under Sec. 156 (3) of the Cr.P.C. for direction to the concerned police to register an FIR. On 27/1/2010, the SHO of the concerned police station filed a status report stating therein various reasons for non-registration of the FIR including the reason that the issue raised was predominantly of civil nature. On 9/2/2010, the learned Metropolitan Magistrate dismissed the application under Sec. 156 (3) of the Cr.P.C. The respondent No.2/complainant was directed to lead evidence. He examined himself and two other witnesses at pre-summoning stage. Vide impugned order dtd. 6/1/2014, the learned Magistrate after considering the statements of the complainant and the other witnesses, directed for issuance of summons to the petitioners for offences punishable under Ss. 405/420 of the IPC. This court vide order dtd. 17/11/2014, stayed the further proceedings of the complaint case.

(3.) The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that the complaint in question has been filed after a delay of almost 20 years. The only aim to file the complaint is to harass the petitioners, and extort money; and the same is abuse of the process of law. He further submits that the entire matter is of the civil nature, yet it has been given a colour of criminality and the offences under Ss. 405/420 of the IPC are not made out even if the complaint is taken on face value. He further submits that in any case there was no intention to cheat the complainant at the time of making promise as there was no dishonest intention on the part of the petitioners. He places reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matters of M/s Thermax Ltd. and Ors. v. K.M. Johny and Ors. (2011) 13 SCC 412, V.Y. Jose and Anr. v. State of Gujarat and Anr. (2009) 3 SCC 78 and Ajay Mitra v. State of M.P. and Ors. AIR 2003 SC 1069.