RAJIV VAID Vs. GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition, the petitioners seek to challenge the order dated 15.5.2012 passed by the learned ASJ, thereby setting aside the order passed by the learned trial court, discharging the petitioners for the offence punishable under Sections 380/34 IPC.

(2.) Assailing the order dated 15.5.2012, counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioner no.2 is the daughter-in-law while the petitioner no.1 is the son of the complainant. Counsel also submits that five Kisan Vikas Patras each for Rs.10,000/- for five and half years with total maturity value of Rs. 1 lac were purchased by the petitioner no.2 and the complainant in their joint names. Counsel submits that these petitioners had never stolen the said KisanVikasPatras from the custody and possession of the complainant although the complainant had filed a complaint with the postal authorities with a request not to allow the petitioner no.2 to encash the said KisanVikasPatras. Counsel also submits that in fact the petitioner no.2 being a joint holder of the said Kisan Vikas Patra had filed a civil suit before the learned civil judge for declaration and mandatory injunction impleading therein the complainant and the postal authorities to declare the petitioner no. 2 to be entitled for encashment of the said KisanVikas Patra bearing serial nos. 20CC303728, 20CC303729, 20CC303730, 20CC303731 and 20CC303732. Counsel further submits that during the pendency of the said civil suit the complainant had died on 9.10.2005 and after the death of the complainant, the petitioner no.2 became entitled to seek encashment of the said Kisan Vikas Patras in her own right. Counsel also submits that the petitioner no.2 had withdrawn the said suit on the assurance extended by the postal authorities that the said Kisan Vikas Patras shall be encashed on their presentation by the petitioner no.2. Counsel also submits that the petitioner no.2 had deposited the original KisanVikasPatras in the said civil suit and the same were returned to her on 30.11.2005.

(3.) Based on the above submissions, counsel for the petitioners submits that vide order dated 25.8.2011, the learned M.M. had discharged the petitioners after appreciating the order passed by the civil court. Counsel also submits that the order dated 15.5.2012 passed by the learned ASJ, thereby setting aside the order dated 25.8.2011 passed by the learned M.M. is a clear case of non application of mind on his part as without making any reference to the said facts on record he took a view that there is sufficient material to frame charges against the accused persons for the offences punishable under Sections 380/34 IPC.