Crl. Rev. P. 832/2006 and Crl. M.C. 7311-15/2006. Case: 1. Jitender Nath, 2. Rajneesh Goenka and Ors. Vs 1. Ram Phal Bansal and Anr., 2. State and Anr.. High Court of Delhi (India)
| Case Number | Crl. Rev. P. 832/2006 and Crl. M.C. 7311-15/2006 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: Harish Uppal, Adv., K.K. Sud, Sr. Adv., Navin Chawla, Rajiv Awasthi and Kunal Malhotra, Advs. and For Respondents: Manoj Ohri, APP for State, Mukesh Tyagi, EOW., K.K. Sud, Sr. Adv., Navin Chawla, Rajiv Awasthi, Kunal Malhotra, Advs., Manoj Ohri, APP for State, Mukesh Tyagi, EOW. and Harish Uppal, Adv. |
| Judges | Vipin Sanghi, J. |
| Issue | Societies Registration Act; Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) - Sections 161, 207, 209, 227, 397, 401, 403 and 482; Indian Penal Code - Sections 20, 120, 120B, 201, 331, 341, 415, 420, 441, 448, 463, 464, 468, 471 and 472; Constitution of India - Article 226 |
| Citation | 2010 (170) DLT 282 |
| Judgement Date | May 17, 2010 |
| Court | High Court of Delhi (India) |
Judgment:
Vipin Sanghi, J.
CRL R.P. No. 832/2006 & CRL MC Nos. 7311-15/2006
-
By this judgment, I propose to dispose of the aforesaid two petitions.
-
Crl. R.P. No. 832/2006 has been preferred by Shri Jitender Nath under Section 397 read with Section 401 and 403 and Section 482 of the Cr. P.C with a prayer to set aside that portion of the order dated 15.9.2006 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, whereby he has refused to take cognizance of the offence allegedly committed by respondent No. 1, Sh. R.P. Bansal under Section 201 IPC read with Section 120B IPC and, consequently, to issue summons to respondent No. 1, who had been named in the charge sheet as accused No. 7 in column No. 4.
-
Crl M.C. No. 7311-15/2006 has been preferred by the petitioners, viz. Rajneesh Goenka, Sh. B.K. Rana, Sh. Kamal Gaind, Sh. S.R. Chanan and Sh. Sewak Balkishan Gupta, who are named as accused Nos. 2 to 6 (not necessarily in the same order) in the charge sheet filed in the Court of the Metropolitan Magistrate, to seek quashing of FIR No. 119/1997 under Section 448/468/471/120B IPC registered at police station, Chittaranjan Park, New Delhi (investigated by the Crime Branch) and the proceedings emanating therefrom. They also challenge the summoning order dated 15.9.2006 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi pursuant to filing of the charge sheet, summoning the petitioners/accused under Sections 420/448/471/120B IPC. Both the petitions relate to the same FIR and charge sheet.
-
I have heard the arguments of learned Counsels in both the petitions and proceed to decide the same by this common judgment.
-
The petitioners in Crl. M.C. Nos. 7311-15/2006, who are accused in case FIR No. 119/1997 as aforesaid, claim to be the elected representatives of the society called 'Shri Sanatan Dharam GK-II Sabha', which is a registered society under the Societies Registration Act. It is stated that the society has approximately 1400 members and its aims and objects (as per the rules and regulations of the society) are to run a temple, a charitable dispensary, a library, a school and to hold various social and religious activities. The affairs of the society are run from a temple known as Sanatan Dharam Mandir, Greater Kailash-II, New Delhi which is situated on a land admeasuring about 2 acres. The said society is functioning for more than 30 years.
-
The petitioners allege that respondent No. 2 viz. Shri Jitender Nath was earlier in control of the affairs of the society for more than 20 years. It is alleged that respondent No. 2 used his influence and muscle power for carrying out illegal activities and misappropriation of funds, and used the said temple for his personal gains and benefits. It is alleged that the petitioners and other members submitted a requisition to the then General Secretary, Sh. S.M. Aggarwal for holding an Extraordinary General Body Meeting. The Extraordinary General Body Meeting was called on 2.3.1997 and the members present in the meeting decided to form an ad-hoc committee. It is also alleged that it was further resolved unanimously, that free and fair elections should be held within two months from 2.3.1997. The petitioners claim that petitioner No. 1 was elected as the President of the ad-hoc committee. It is stated that free and fair elections were held on 19.4.1997 and the newly elected executive committee took over charge from the ad-hoc committee. It is further alleged that respondent No. 2 fearing defeat in the elections, did not participate in the election process.
-
On 10.03.1997, respondent No. 2 made a complaint to the local police which was registered as FIR No. 119/1997 under Section 448 IPC at police station Chittaranjan Park, New Delhi. In the said complaint, it had, inter alia, been alleged that Sh. Rajneesh Goenka and others, on their own, without serving any notice to the General Secretary under Clause 12(c) of the constitution of the Sabha called a so-called General Body Meeting and got themselves appointed as President and members of the ad-hoc committee as per their version. It was alleged that no General Body Meeting was ever held. It was alleged that the executive committee is not being allowed to function independently because Sh. Rajneesh Goenka and others had stationed their goondas in the Mandir. It was alleged that the goonda elements deployed by Sh. Rajnish Goenka and others had tampered with the cash chest, almirahs, Secretary's almirahs which were locked and the keys whereof were with the complainant and others. It was alleged that criminal trespass had taken place, for which a regular complaint had been made on 04.03.1997 to the S.H.O., P.S. C.R. Park, New Delhi.
-
It appears that on the basis of the investigation (earlier conducted by the local police of P.S. Chittaranjan Park, which was later transferred to the Economic Offence Wing, Crime Branch) the charge sheet dated 17.03.2006 was filed by the investigating agency, inter alia, alleging that the petitioners had forged three documents, namely, the requisition dated 3.1.1997 for holding Extraordinary General Body Meeting and fresh elections, purportedly signed by 31 persons; notice dated 4.2.1997 purportedly fixing the Extraordinary General Body Meeting on 2.3.1997, allegedly signed by 36 persons; and the attendance register dated 2.3.1997, allegedly signed by 61 persons, and Sh. Ram Phal Bansal committed the offence under Section 201 read with Section 120B by causing the disappearance of the aforesaid documents.
-
The charge sheet narrates that on the basis of the investigation conducted and bank records, Section 420 I.P.C. was added on 03.03.1998 after material was collected to the effect that a new account in the name of Sanatan Dharam Greater Kailash-II Sabha had been opened at State Bank of Indore, G.K.-II and was being operated instead of the old bank account in the name of Sanatan Dharam,Greater Kailash-II Sabha. As per the charge sheet, as the case was based upon three documents, namely, (i) requisition dated 03.01.1997 to the General Secretary of the Sabha for holding general body meeting and the elections purportedly signed by 31 signatories; (ii) notice dated 04.02.1997 purportedly signed by 36 persons for attending the general body meeting on 02.03.1997 and (iii) extract of attendance register dated 02.03.1997 purportedly signed by 62 persons, during investigation Sh. B.K. Rana, Sh. Sevak Bal Kishan Gupta, Sh. Rajnish Goenka, Sh. S.R. Chauhan and Sh. Kamal Gaind were interrogated at length and their specimen signatures and writings were obtained in the light of the three disputed documents. Similarly, the specimen signatures of various persons/members who are named in the three disputed documents were also obtained and the same were referred to GEQD/Chandigarh. Efforts were made to procure the originals of the three disputed documents, but the accused persons did not produce the same. The stand taken by the accused persons was that the documents were sent to the office of their Advocate Sh. R.P. Bansal.
-
As per the charge sheet, the requisition dated 03.01.1997 was purportedly signed by 31 members/signatories most of whom had denied their signatures on this requisition in their statements recorded under Section 161 Cr. P.C. Sh. S.M. Aggarwal, the then General Secretary of the Sabha, had also denied receiving any such requisition. The charge sheet also noted that a look at these three disputed documents showed that most of the names appear in the same serial number, which showed that the documents were signed in one go. These documents had initially been signed by Sh. Rajnish Goenka, meaning thereby that these documents had originated through him. One Sh. S.S. Verma had also sworn an affidavit dated 10.04.1997 stating that all the signatures at serial Nos. 51 to 60 on the attendance register were taken at their residence (S-361, Greater Kailash-II), and they did not attend any general body meeting. In the attendance register dated 02.03.1997 the name of Sh. R.L. Mathur appeared at two serial numbers i.e. 11 & 62.
-
The charge sheet further notes that in Crl. M. (Main) No. 661/2008 i.e. the bail application/petition of Sh. Rajnish Goenka, the counsel for the accused Rajnish Goenka, viz. Sh. R.P. Bansal had assured the Court in the hearing held on 05.05.1998 that the necessary documents shall be supplied and that the petitioner shall cooperate with the prosecution, but on 05.08.1998 Sh. R.P. Bansal, counsel for the petitioner, Sh. Rajnish Goenka informed the court that the original documents had been lost and that they are not in a position to produce the originals. As per the charge sheet, from the aforesaid it appeared that these documents were intentionally concealed/destroyed/lost with the motive that they may not be used/verified by the investigating agency and the veracity/genuineness of these documents may not be verified. The charge sheet states that it is, therefore, clear that Sh. R.P. Bansal was very much instrumental in concealing/destroying the three documents aforesaid, which were important in the case. It further records that Sh. R.P. Bansal had been named in FIR No. 164/2005 dated 03.05.2005 under Sections 420/468/471/448/341/201/120 IPC registered at P.S. Chandni Chowk, Delhi, which reflects on his conduct. It states that from the version/statement of the signatories on those documents it was apparent that the said documents are forged documents.
-
The charge sheet further records that from the statements of Tek Bahadur, Shiv Narain, Sudershan Kumar Chopra and Tilak Singh it was revealed that on 02.03.1997 Sh. Rajnish Goenka, Sh. B.K. Rana, Sh. S.R. Chahan and Sh. P.R. Gulati entered into the premises of Sanatan Dharam, Greater Kailash-II Sabha and snatched the keys and in this way grabbed the seat and encroached the premises of Sanatan Dharam Greater Kailash-II Sabha. The charge sheet also refers to the statement of Sh. Dalip Singh son of Sh. Bachan Singh (a key...
To continue reading
Request your trial