Back
2014 Supreme(Del) 2506
High Court of Delhi
VED PRAKASH VAISH, J.
Manish Madan & Another
Versus
State
CRL. M.C. No. 3599 of 2014
Decided on: 27-11-2014
Advocate Appeared
For the Petitioners:Ajay Verma, Advocate.
For the Respondent: M.P. Singh, APP.
The court emphasized the limited scope of Section 482 of Cr.P.C. and the inherent powers of the court to prevent the abuse of process of the Court and secure the ends of justice.
Headnote:
Forgery - Criminal Procedure - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Section 482) - Sections 419/468/471/120B IPC and Sections 420/511/120 IPC - The court discussed the scope of Section 482 of Cr.P.C. and the inherent powers of the court to prevent the abuse of process of the Court and secure the ends of justice. It emphasized that the court should interfere only when it is satisfied that non-quashing of charges would amount to abuse of process of Court and when the interest of justice otherwise calls for quashing of charges.
Fact of the Case:
The complainant alleged fraudulent transactions using a lost credit card, leading to the apprehension of the accused at the spot of goods delivery.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that a prima facie case for the offence under Sections 419/468/471/120B IPC and under Sections 420/511/120 IPC was made out based on the available evidence.
Issues: The issues included ownership of the credit card, the legality of obtaining handwriting specimens, and the scope of Section 482 of Cr.P.C.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that it should interfere under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. only when non-quashing of charges would amount to abuse of process of Court and when the interest of justice otherwise calls for quashing of charges.
Final Decision: The court found no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order and dismissed the petition.
1. The present petition has been preferred by the petitioner under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Cr.P.C.’) assailing the order dated 24.07.2014 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-05 (Central), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi whereby the Criminal Revision bearing C.R. No.135/14 was dismissed.
2. Succinctly the facts of the case are that on 23.04.2005 complainant Mr. Hemant Bishnoi, Chief Manager (Shopping), India Times lodged a complaint stating that on 12.04.2005 one Ravi Arora placed an order for purchase of 256 MB SD card worth Rs.38,400/- (Rupees Thirty eight thousand four hundred) and on the same day he had also placed an order of different Nokia mobile phones worth Rs.1,47,370/-(Rupees One lakh fourty seven thousand three hundred and seventy) by using credit card No.5409085000079373. Since, it was a high value transaction, as a routine the confirmation was sought from Citi Bank through e-mail dated 19.04.2005 who in reply asked the complainant to keep the transactions on hold as the above mentioned credit card was reported lost by the issuing bank. The complainant has also stated that on 21.04.2005 (from the original FIR) a telephonic call was received from phone No.23273418 and the caller disclosed his name as Ravi Arora and confirmed that he has placed the said order worth Rs.1,85,770/- (Rupees One lakh eighty five thousand seven hundred and seventy) and further inquired about its delivery. Since, the complainant was already informed by the bank about the fraudulent transactions and was further advised by the bank not to execute the delivery of the said order. The complainant told him to come to their office at 10, Daryaganj, Delhi between 3:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. It is also stated by the complainant that on 23.04.2005 two persons whose names were revealed as Manish Madan and Kapil Mehta were carrying an authority letter in the name of Rajiv Kumar to collect the goods. Both the said persons signed the order form and while doing so their photographs were taken. Both of them were detained and as the complainant had already informed the police about it, the police officials reached at the spot and apprehended both the said persons.
3. After conclusion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed and after considering the plea taken by the applicant learned trial court further proceeded towards framing charges for the offence under Sections 419/468/471 IPC read with Section 120B IPC and Sections 420/511 IPC read with Section 120B IPC vide order dated 05.05.2014. Aggrieved by the said order the petitioners preferred the Criminal Revision No.135/2014, which was dismissed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi vide impugned order dated 24.07.2014. Therefore, against the impugned order the petitioner has preferred the present petition.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the bone of contention is that the alleged credit card No.5409085000079373 belonged to Chalakkara Saimmuddeen but no cogent evidence has been collected by the investigating officer with regard to the ownership of the said credit card. The investigating officer could not reveal the ownership of the credit card and filed a report that the owner of the card could not be ascertained. Accordingly, the offence of forgery under Sections 419/468/471 IPC read with Section 120B IPC and Sections 420/511 IPC read with Section 120B IPC is not made out.
5. Another submission of learned counsel for petitioner is that the investigating officer did not obtain any permission from the trial court to obtain the alleged specimen handwriting of the petitioners without following the mandatory provisions of law. In support of his submission, he has relied upon judgment of this Court in ‘Sapan Haldar & Anr. vs. State’, (2012) 191 DLT 225 (FB).
6. Per contra, learned APP for the State urged that the petitioners were apprehended at the spot when they had gone to take delivery of the goods which were purchased on the
