Back
2012 Supreme(Del) 3110
DELHI HIGH COURT
V.K.Shali, J.
Sarita Dode - Appellant
Versus
State & Anr. - Resopndent
Criminal M.C. No. 3800 of 2012 and Criminal M.A. No. 18364 of 2012 (Forstay)
Decided On : 05-11-2012
For the Petitioner: Mr. S.C. Sagar , Mr. Bhisham Singh, Advo#31;cates.
For the State : Mr. Sunil Sharma, APP.
At the stage of summoning, the court only needs to consider whether prima facie the ingredients of the offences are made out, and the presumption under Section 114 sub-clause (a) in relation to possession of stolen property.
Headnote:
Section 482 Cr.P.C. - Quashing of summoning order - Section 420/380/34 IPC - 114 sub-clause (a)
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a petition seeking to quash the summoning order issued against her for offences under Section 420/380/34 IPC. The complainant alleged that the petitioner induced him to invest in a money trading business, failed to return the money, and was involved in the theft of his gold items.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that prima facie the ingredients of Section 420 IPC were satisfied as the petitioner induced the complainant to part with money and caused wrongful gain to herself. Additionally, the court invoked Section 380 IPC with the help of Section 34 IPC based on the presumption that the petitioner was involved in the theft of gold items.
Issues: The issues revolved around the prima facie satisfaction of the ingredients of the offences under Section 420/380/34 IPC and the invocation of Section 114 sub-clause (a) in relation to possession of stolen property.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that at the stage of summoning, it only needs to consider whether prima facie the ingredients of the offences are made out. It also highlighted the presumption under Section 114 sub-clause (a) in relation to possession of stolen property.
Final Decision: The petition seeking quashing of the summoning order was dismissed as the court found no gross abuse of the processes of law or any order required to be passed in the interest of justice.
V.K. Shali, J. (ORAL);—
1. The petitioner has filed the present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. praying therein for quashing of order dated 14.8.2012 by virtue of which she has been summoned in Complaint Case No.10/1/12, registered at Police Station Fatehpur Beri to face the trial for an offence under Section 420/380/34 IPC.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and gone through the impugned order. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that no case under Section 380 or 420 IPC is made out warranting the summoning of the petitioner. In this regard, the learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of the court to the impugned order and the documents filed along with the petition.
3. I have carefully considered the submissions. The respondent No.2 filed a complaint case against the petitioner. It was alleged in the complaint that the complainant, Suraj Bharti, was a permanent resident of Khasra No.67, Village Sahurpur, near Chadanhola Bus Stop, New Delhi-110074. He met accused No.1, Sarita Dode, the present petitioner, in the office of Davish Group in the month of April, 2011, where she was working as a receptionist. The said company was dealing in money trading. It is alleged by the complainant/respondent No.2 that the petitioner became familiar with him and in the month of May, 2011, he was induced by the petitioner to part with a sum of Rs.1 lac on the pretext that she would invest the same in some money trading business which will double his amount to Rs.2 lacs within a period of two months. On the basis of the said representation, the respondent No.2 is alleged to have handed over an amount of Rs.1 lac to the petitioner in the presence of Vishal Baitha and Dhanraj Dode, who are accused Nos.2 and 3 respectively in the complaint. This amount was handed over on 10.5.2011. After a couple of months, that is, in the month of August, 2011, the respondent No.2 stated that he demanded his money back from the petitioner but the amount was not returned, on the contrary, the petitioner is alleged to have given a photocopy of her PAN card and voter ID card to him with a view to gain his faith regarding the genuineness of the investment being made by her.
4. The second allegation which is made by the respondent No.2/complainant is that on 20.9.2011, the petitioner, who had come to stay with complainant, left the house of the complainant whereupon, he found out that a gold ring and a gold chain belonging to him were missing. On 30.9.2011, the petitioner along with accused No.2, namely, Vishal Baitha, again came at the residence of the complainant and it was then that the complainant noticed that the accused No.2 was wearing his gold chain and gold ring. It seems that the respondent/complainant had an impression that both these items were stolen from his residence while the present petitioner was living with him. The respondent/complainant alleges that he made repeated complaints to the police and since they failed to take any action, he lodged the complaint before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate.
5. After filing of the complaint, the respondent No.2/complainant examined himself as CW-1 and proved the complaint exhibit CW 1/A, the notice exhibit CW1/B, he testified against the present petitioner in respect of the averments made by him in the complaint. On the basis of the averments made in the complaint as well as the statement of the respondent, the present petitioner and accused No.2, Vishal Baitha, were summoned for offences under Section 380 and 420 IPC. The learned Metropolitan Magistrate did not summon accused No.3, that is, Dhanraj Dode.
6. The present petitioner is feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid summoning order. The learned counsel for the petitioner has raised questions which go into the merit of the case or which raise the disputed question of facts which can be adjudicated only once he enters into the appearance and cross-examines the witness/complainant at the s
