TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (6) TMI 1365
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... justice." 2. The learned Additional Session Judge-03, South-East, Saket Court Complex, New Delhi, in C.R. No. 24/2010, vide order dated 21.04.2011, dismissed the revision petition filed on behalf of the petitioner and upheld the order dated 25.03.2010, passed by the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate-IV, South-East, Saket Court, New Delhi. Whereby, the learned ACMM accepted the cancellation report filed by the Investigating Officer, in FIR No. 613/2007, under Sections 406/420 of the Indian Penal Code ('IPC') registered at P.S. New Friends Colony. 3. Briefly stated, the facts relevant for adjudication of the present petition are as under: i. The case of the petitioner, as per the complaint filed under Section 200 read with Section 190 of the Cr.P.C. is as under: "1. That the complainant Kapoor Chand Gupta S/o Late Sh. Yad Ram Gupta presently 82 years old , is the permanent resident of Firozpur City of Punjab and at present he is residing at House No. : 35/50, Trilok Puri, Delhi. 2. That on 05.01.2001, complainant purchased a Ashok Leyland Diesel Bus chasis , from M/s. Pearey Lai & Sons (Ep.) Ltd., 63, Rama Road, Patel Nagar, Near Fly Over, New Delhi-11....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o. DI-lP-A-7622 and ignition key to the official of Ashok Leyland Finance Ltd. , Bhagria House, 43, Community Centre, New Friends Colony, New Delhi-110 065 . The officials of Ashok Leyland Finance Ltd. , also asked the complainant to contact M/s. Pearrey Lal 85 Sons for fitting of CNG kit from whom the bus was purchased.. 8. That the officials of Ashok Leyland Finance Ltd. , also contacted M/s. Pearey Lal & Sons in the presence of the complainant to get fit the CNG kit in his bus. The complainant also wrote letter to M/s. Pearey Lal & Sons. 9. That the officials of Ashok Leyland Finance Ltd. , after taking ignition key and possession of bus, delayed the fitting of CNG kit in the bus for about 20 days and on one or other false pretext of contacting the CNG kit dealers, they linger on and delayed the CNG kit fitting in bus for about 20 days. Then, complainant requested the officials of the accused company to return his bus and he decided to arrange the fitting the CNG kit on his own . 10. That the officials of Ashok Leyland Finance Ltd. , Bhagria House, 43, Community Centre, New Friends Colony, New Delhi-110 065, instead of returning the bus of the complainant handed over one l....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....003 , Ashok Leyland Finance Ltd.'s officials demanded Rs. 1,19,426/-to return his vehicle. Accordingly on 25.02.2003 , the complainant paid Rs. 1,19,426/-to accused persons , which was duly acknowledged by the officials of Ashok Leyland. But, they did not return the complainant vehicle even after payment of Rs. 1,19,426/-. The copy of the payment of Rs. 1,19,426/-made on 25.02.2003, is being filed and same is marked as annex. E. 14. That the bus of the complainant was duly insured for the period of 12.04.2002 to 11.04.2003 and the complainant had already paid insurance subscription of Rs. 11,831/-to the Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., but the accused persons withhold the bus of the complainant on 2.12.2002 and have not returned the till date. The true copy of the insurance company is being filed and marked as annex. F. 15. That after receipt of Rs. 1,19,426/-, the officials of Ashok Leyland Finance Ltd., refused to return the complainant vehicle and delayed the matter on one or other false pretext. After long waiting, complainant reported the matter to the police and also intimated the Delhi Transport Authority not to transfer his vehicle in the name of any other person. B....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....38 N. I. Act against the complainant for the dishonoured of the cheque of Rs. 3,60,768/-dated 18.01.2006 by taking advantage of the signature of complainant on the blank cheque , signed and given by the complainant to the accused persons in January 2001 at the time of getting finance the vehicle. 20. That the Ashok Leyland Finance Ltd's officials have misappropriated the vehicle of the complainant by taking advantage of his old age and loneliness as they have not returned his bus since 02.12.2002 only for some of Rs. 1,92,842/-and the market value of the bus of the complainant on 02.12.2002 was approx. Rs. 8,00,000/-{Rupees Eight Lacs only) . Even on today, the value of the bus is Rs. 7,00,000/-(Rupees Seven Lacs only) . And on the other hands, the accused persons have filed a criminal complaint under section 138 of N. I. Act , in respect of dishonour of cheque no. 162539 for Rs. 3,60,768/-dated 18.01.2006 to extort the complainant by fabricating the false figure of amount and date on the cheque by taking advantage of blank signature of the complainant on the cheque. 21. That the officials of Ashok Leyland Finance Ltd. , Bhagria House, 43, Community Centre, New Friends Colo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....arned MM directed the SHO, P.S. New Friends Colony, to register an FIR under appropriate sections and to proceed with the investigation. Subsequently, an FIR dated 19.11.2007, bearing FIR no. 613/2007, under Sections 406/420 of the IPC was registered at P.S. New Friends Colony. iii. After completion of the investigation in the aforesaid FIR, a Cancellation Report was filed, before the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, under Section 173 of the Cr.P.C. iv. In pursuance thereof, the petitioner filed a protest petition dated 21.10.2009, wherein he prayed to reject the Cancellation Report filed by the Investigating Officer in FIR no. 613/2007, under Sections 406/420, registered at P.S. New Friends Colony and further take cognizance on the complaint filed by him. v. The learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate vide order dated 25.03.2010, accepted the Cancellation Report filed by the Investigating Officer and dismissed the protest petition filed by the petitioner, herein. The grounds under which the Investigating Officer had filed the Cancellation Report, was recorded by the learned ACMM and are as under: "1). Bus was taken to godown of the accused company....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..../s. Pyare Lal & Sons company for fitting of the CNG kit. Instead of returning the bus on 24.12.2002, the company handed over a letter by stating that the said vehicle was surrendered on 02.12.2002 and asked to clear the outstanding amount of Rs. 3,12,268/-. It is further alleged in the complaint that 27.12.202 and again on 30.12.2002, the complainant had paid Rs. 17,500/-for DTC bus stand fee. Further had paid a Rs. 1,19,426/-on 25.02.2003 for return of the vehicle. It is further alleged by the complainant that he has already paid the insurance amount upto 11.04.2003. But despite this the accused persons had not returned the said bus. Furthermore, in December 2006, complainant received summons u/s 138 NI Act by which he came to know that the said vehicle sold by the accused company for the sum of Rs. 1,70,000/-and therefore filed a criminal complaint to the police for initiating criminal action against the accused person for alleged cheating and misappropriation of the bus and further misutilising of the blank signed cheques. xxx 9. Main grievance of the revisionist/complainant is that the accused persons have misappropriated his bus which was given to them for the purpose of C....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... trial court in the impugned order that in protest petition, the revisionist only reiterated the details of earlier complaint and offered no explanation or clarification suggesting the short comings of the cancellation report. Therefore, there is no justification in continuance of the proceedings through protest petition. xxx 15. Therefore the proposition of law which emerges as also argued by Ld. counsel for revisionist that court even after acceptance of cancellation report may continue with complaint case proceedings. But it is not mandatory and all depends upon facts and circumstances of each case. In present set of facts, revisionist unable to point out any shortcoming in the findings disclosed in cancellation report. Even has not disputed his own letter of surrender of vehicle. Furthermore could not bring forth any new fact suggesting commission of offence in protest petition to enable court to proceed with inquiry despite acceptance of final report. Even otherwise on consideration of entire material on record no offence of misappropriation and cheating appears to have been made out." viii. Aggrieved by the orders passed by the learned ASJ dated 21.04.2011 as well as or....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the petitioner, was allowed by the predecessor Bench of this Court vide order dated 07.09.2022 and the name of the petitioner was substituted by Sh. Sahil Gupta s/o Sh. Sushil Gupta, R/o House No. 46, Street No. 1 Ferozepur Cantt, Punjab. 13. In Rajan Kumar Manchanda v. State of Karnataka, 1990 (Supp) Supreme Court Cases 132, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under: "2. ...A second Revision did not lie at the instance of the State to the High Court in view of the provisions of Section 397(3) of Cr.P.C. Obviously, to avoid this bar, the application moved by the State before the High Court was stated to be under Section 482 Cr.P.C. asking for exercise of inherent powers. In exercise of that power, the High Court has reversed the order of the Magistrate as affirmed by the Sessions Judge. The question for consideration is as to whether the bar under Section 397(3) Cr.P.C. should have been taken note of to reject the revision at the instance of the State Government or action taken by the High Court in exercise of its inherent power has to be sustained. It is not disputed by counsel appearing for the State that the move before the High Court was really on application for revis....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 571." 15. In Varinder Kaur v. The State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr., , a leaned Single Judge of this Court, has observed as under: 21. It is worth mentioning that in the garb of petition under Section 482 CrPC, the petitioner has filed second revision petition which is not maintainable. In the case Wajid Mirza vs. Mohammed Ali Ahmed & Ors. 1982 CriLJ 890, the High Court of Andhra Pradesh has observed as under :- "23. This Court in Re Puritipati Jagga Reddy, (1979) 1 AJLJ 1 : AIR 1979 Andhra Pra. 146 at p. 149 (FB) held : The language of sub-section (3) of Section 397 contains no ambiguity. If any person had already chosen to file a revision before the High Court or to the Sessions Court under subsection (1), the same person cannot prefer a further application to the other Court. To put it in other words, sub-sec.(1) and (3) make it clear that a person aggrieved by any order or proceeding can seek remedy by way of revision either before the High Court or the Sessions Court. Once, he has availed himself of the remedy, he is precluded from approaching the other forum. It is equally manifest from the provisions of sub-section (3) that this bar is limited to the same person who has al....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 330, while dealing with the scope of reappreciation of evidence by higher court in criminal revision observed in para 9 as under: "9. ...It is a settled legal proposition that if the courts below have recorded the finding of fact, the question of reappreciation of evidence by the third court does not arise unless it is found to be totally perverse..." Following the aforesaid judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court recently in Malkeet Singh Gill Vs. State of Chhattisgarh, (2022) 8 SCC 204, has held as under: "10. Before adverting to the merits of the contention, at the outset, it is apt to mention that there are concurrent findings of conviction arrived at by two courts after detailed appreciation of the material and evidence brought on record. The High Court in criminal revision against conviction is not supposed to exercise the jurisdiction alike to the appellate court and the scope of interference in revision is extremely narrow. Section 397 of the Criminal Procedure Code ( in short "CrPC") vests jurisdiction for the purpose of satisfying itself or himself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, sentence or order, recorded or passed, and as to the regu....