SEEMA Vs. SATISH SACHDEVA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Satish Sachdeva (respondent No. 1 herein) made a complaint dated 12-6-1999 to the Superintendent of Police. Amritsar City-II, alleging that Sham Sunder son of Banarai Dass, started a chit fund company under the name and style of M/s. S. Finance, G.T. Road, Near Bus Stand. Amritsar. He claimed that he had enrolled himself as a member of the Chit Fund and made regular contribution of Rs. 10,000.00 every month on account of which he was entitled to receive a sum of Rs. 1,50,000.00 on 30-9-1998. Despite repeated requests made by him to the aforesaid Sham Sunder, the amount had not been returned. The complainant, on the basis of the aforesaid facts, alleged in his aforesaid complaint that he had been made a member of the chit fund fraudulently by Sham Sunder so as to dishonestly cheat him for personal monetary gains. It was also alleged that the amount deposited by the complainant in the chit fund was dishonestly misappropriated by the aforesaid Sham Sunder. A compromise was entered into between the complainant Satish Sachdeva and the accused Sham Sunder on 22-6-1999 wherein Sham Sunder agreed to pay the complainant Satish Sachdeva all outstanding dues.

(2.) It is the case of the complainant Satish Sachdeva that despite the aforesaid compromise, Sham Sunder had failed to honour the commitment made despite repeated requests. It is in the aforesaid circumstances that Satish Sachdeva made a complaint under Ss. 405/406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code to the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Amritsar, on 27-9-1999. In the instant complaint Satish Sachdeva, the complainant alleges that on account of the deposits made by him, he was to be released a sum of Rs. 30,000.00 on 30-6-1998, a sum of Rs. 1,00,000.00 on 30-8-1998 and finally a sum of Rs. 2,50,000.00 on 25-9-1998 as a consequence of his contribution to three chit funds. It is alleged in the aforesaid complaint that despite his contributions, Sham Sunder accused had failed to release the payments to him. Paragraph 6 of the complaint which is relevant to the present controversy is being extracted hereunder :-

(3.) It is the case of the petitioner before this Court that the complainant had made no reference to her in his first complaint dated 12-6-1999 and reference made to her and the second complaint dated 27-9-1999 even if taken on its face value and accepted as correct would be insufficient to fulfil the ingredients constituting the offence under Ss. 405 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code.