DEEPAK MEHTA Vs. YASHI MULTIMEDIA PVT. LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Sec. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) is directed against the order dtd. 30/9/2011 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Saket Courts, New Delhi, in Criminal Revision No. 58/2011, whereby, order dtd. 6/5/2011, passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate-03, (South), Saket Courts, in Criminal Complaint case No. 27334/2010 dismissing the complaint at the stage of issuing of summons, has been affirmed.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner filed a complaint under Sec. 200 of the Cr.P.C. for the offence punishable under Sec. 420 read with Sec. 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) before the Court of learned MM (South), Saket Courts, Delhi. As per the complaint, the petitioner was carrying a business of event management and was organizing shows of celebrities/cine stars, film actors etc. in different parts of the United States of America. Respondent No.1 is a Private Limited Company and respondent Nos.2 to 4 are the Directors of Respondent No.1. Respondent No.5 is a cine star/film actor and is the son of respondent No.2 and 3 and brother of respondent No.4. According to the complaint, the respondent No.5 being a film actor had authorized the other respondents to deal on his behalf for his live shows in India as well as abroad and the other respondents were receiving the payments on behalf of respondent No.5. It is further stated that in January, 2003, respondent Nos.2 to 5 were introduced to the complainant by one Mr. Farhath Hussain. In January, 2003, the complainant met respondent No.2 in Delhi, who requested the complainant to organize some shows of respondent No.5 in U.S.A. and Canada in the month of August and September, 2003. The deal for organizing the show was completed and the letter of confirmation dtd. 29/1/2003 by respondent No.1 duly signed by respondent No.2 was issued. The consent of respondent No.5 was also obtained and it was agreed that the show would be organized in the month of August and September, 2003 in different parts of U.S.A. and respondent No.5 would be paid a sum of $3,00,000/-. The complainant further stated that he remitted the aforesaid amount in the bank account of respondent No.1. The complainant organized the shows but respondent No.5 did not turn up. Accordingly, efforts were made to resolve the issue but the same failed. A letter was written on 7/1/2006 by the complainant to the accused persons demanding the return of the amount remitted to respondent No.1. It is thus stated that the malafide intentions of the respondents is apparent and they, on one pretext or another, avoided the repayment of the said amount and have, therefore, cheated the complainant with an intention at the very inception of not participating in the shows.

(3.) After filing of the complaint, the learned MM recorded presummoning evidence and after hearing the complainant did not find any ingredients of the offence in question and accordingly refused to issue summons. The order passed by the learned MM has been affirmed by the revisional court by the impugned order dtd. 30/9/2011. The petitioner is, therefore, before this court in the instant petition.