* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Reserved on:01^st May, 2025 Pronounced on: 30^th June, 2025 + CRL.M.C. 1096/2021 & CRL.M.A. 5594/2021 MANORANJANA SINH D/O Mr. Kedar Nath Gupta R/o D-47, Gulmohar Park, New Delhi-110049.

.....Petitioner Through: Mr. Ashutosh Ghade, Advocate.

Versus

1. STATE (NCT OF DELHI)

THROUGH SHO Police Station: Mandir Marg, New Delhi.

2. TARUN JAIN S/o Shri I.C. Jain R/o K-20, Green Park Extension, New Delhi-110017.

.....Respondents Through: Mr. Yudhvir Singh Chauhan, APP for the State with SI Amit Chaudhary, Crime Branch.

Mr. A.K. Thakur and Ms. Anushruti Tripathi, Advocates for R-2.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA

J U D G M E N T

NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA, J.

Signature Not Verified Signed By:RITA CRL.M.C. 1096/2021 Page 1 of 13

1. Petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as Cr.P.C.) has been filed on behalf of the Petitioner, Smt. Manoranjana Sinh seeking quashing of the Order dated 28.10.2020 whereby Ld. ACMM has accepted the Protest Petition submitted in FIR No.291/2008 under Section 406 Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as “IPC”), Police Station Mandir Marg registered on the Complaint of Respondent No.2, Sh. Tarun Jain and took cognizance for the offence against her.

2. Briefly stated, as per the case of the prosecution, Respondent No. 2, Sh. Tarun Jain, complainant delivered certain jewellery worth Rs.84,47,700/- to the Petitioner, Smt. Manoranjana Sinh in July-August, 2008 for which she failed to make any payment. The Respondent No.2 was assured that payment would be made in 2-3 days and that there was no need for him to worry about the payment. He visited the Petitioner on 23.08.2008 to seek the payment, but he was again assured by the Petitioner not to worry. The Complainant then contacted Sh. Matang Sinh, husband of the Petitioner, and was shocked to know that he was not informed about the purchase of jewellery by the Petitioner.

3. Respondent No. 2, then filed three Complaints in different Police Stations within three days. He annexed his bills along with his Complaint dated 23.08.2008 and 18.07.2008. According to his Complaint, one Sh. Rakesh Kumar Chaudhary, Personal Assistant of Sh. Matang Sinh was also present at the time of the transaction. However, no action was taken by the Police despite running from pillar to post. After much running around, FIR No.291/2008 dated 11.10.2008 under Section 406 IPC was registered on his Complaint dated 29.09.2008.

Signature Not Verified Signed By:RITA CRL.M.C. 1096/2021 Page 2 of 13

4. The Police then conducted the investigations and recorded the Statement of Sh. Rakesh Kumar Chaudhary under Section 161 Cr.P.C who supported the version of the Complainant, Sh. Tarun Jain.

5. In the Closure Report dated 09.12.2014, it was noted in the Closure Report that there were three Complaints filed over a period of three days in two Police Stations with different versions. In one Complaint delivery was shown to have been made on 27.07.2008, while in the second Complaint the delivery date is mentioned as 18.07.2008. Furthermore, in the Complaint filed in the Police Station Kotla Mubarakpur, only necklace and bangles were stated to be delivered, but in the subsequent Complaint filed at Police Station Mandir Marg, an addition of one diamond necklace and three loose ruby stones were also claimed to have been delivered.

6. In the Complaint filed in Police Station Kotla Mubarakpur regarding delivery of one emerald necklace, two different dates are mentioned i.e. 17.08.2008 and 28.08.2008 for the same article, while in the Complaint filed after two days, the emerald necklace was stated to be delivered on

18.07.2008.

7. It was observed that the Statement of Sh. Rakesh Kumar Chaudhary was not believable since he was an interested witness. The Petitioner, Smt. Manoranjana Sinh was placed in Column No.12 and it was stated that there were material discrepancies in the three Complaints that were filed on behalf of the