AGALI E. SAMKI Vs. STATE (NCT OF DELHI)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner points out that no case even, prima facie, is made out against the petitioner. He referred to the case for the prosecution according to which it is alleged that in the beginning of 2003 or towards the end of 2002, the complainant placed his request for registration for marriage on a website. Apparently, he received a response from a lady Ms Seikhuana D. Ekwata on 16.9.2005 who stated that she was supposed to receive US $9.7 million belonging to her late father being his next kin and that she was facing difficulty in receiving the money being a refugee and that the money was lying in a bank - Royal Scotland Bank. The account number was given. The bank was contacted by the complainant and the bank asked for a power of attorney, affidavit and the death certificate. The complainant was helping out the said lady in receiving the said sum of US $9.7 million. The lady then sent the e-mail address, telephone number and fax of one Desmond Diallo, a lawyer, who was engaged for providing legal advice and legal assistance. The said lawyer asked for an advance of Euro 650 within ten days for his services. The complainant transferred a sum of Euro 650 equivalent to Rs. 37,500/- to the lawyer's account through ICICI Bank.

(2.) MR . Mittal, who appears for the petitioner, pointed out that till this stage there is no role ascribed to the present petitioner.

(3.) MR . Mittal submitted that apart from giving of the telephone number and a conversation on the telephone with the present petitioner, no money was actually transferred to the present petitioner. The documents received from the lawyer were sent for verification and the report is yet to be received. The efforts are on for establishing the identity of the lady and the said lawyer. He submits that even as per the prosecution case, the role of the present petitioner is such that it cannot amount to any of the offences for which the FIR has been registered.