Full News

Revision petition allowed as no material against the petitioner accused

Petitioner, a chit fund company, induced the respondent to invest with the petitioner. Despite requests for release of matured chit amount, it was not released and respondent filed a complaint u/s 200 & 156 (3) Cr. P. C. before the Ld. Magistrate, and an FIR was registered. Petitioner filed a revision before the Special Judge who held that there was no material to proceed against petitioner and allowed the revision petition. -500080

1. Petitioner is a chit fund company and is operated by its Directors - Sh. Prem Kumar Arya and Sh.Sukhdata Chits Pvt Ltd. v. Hemant Goel Pradeep Arya. Respondent was induced to invest his hard earned money with the petitioner company. Respondent invested his hard earned money vide Chit. Respondent paid full installments for the chit no. Chit which matured in January 2010 but the petitioneraccused neither auctioned the chit on date fixed nor intimated the date regarding auction in future. Despite requests for release of matured amount of chit, the same was not released even after lapse of five six months and the petitioner promised to pay interest on the matured chit amount which was to be adjusted in another chit. However, nothing was released towards these chits. Respondent filed a complaint dated 8.8.2012 in the concerned Police Station but no action was taken.

2. It is further the case of the respondent that Rs.5000/ was paid in September, 2012 and, thereafter, Rs.30,000/ was released in six installments of Rs.5000/ from November, 2012 to June, 2013, thereby leaving balance of Rs.3,15,000/. The respondent was also threatened of dire consequences.

3. On these allegations, a complaint under Section 200 Cr. P. C. along with an application u/s 156 (3) Cr. P. C. was made before the Ld. MM. As per status report, from the averments of the complaint no offence is Sukhdata Chits Pvt Ltd. v. Hemant Goel made out.

4. I am of the opinion that there is no clear material on record to proceed against the petitioner u/s 156 (3) Cr.PC for registration of the FIR. Thus, the direction u/s 156 (3) Cr.PC is not warranted in the present case.

5. In these circumstances and for the above said reasons, the present revision petition is allowed. The impugned order passed by the trial court is set aside. The application u/s 156 (3) Cr.PC filed on behalf of the respondent is dismissed. Trial Court record be sent back with a copy of order and revision file be consigned to record room.

Similar Ripples

Questions

There is no question

Revision petition allowed as no material against the petitioner accused

Write your Comment

Would you like to edit this news ? Edit

Select Format

You get opportunity to take 30 day Challenge program.

Optional

<span style="font-size:100%;font-family:Arial;color:#000000;" data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"Sukhdata Chits Pvt Ltd vs Hemant Goel on 14 December, 2015\nAuthor: Sh. Parveen Kumar\n IN THE COURT OF PRAVEEN KUMAR, SPECIAL JUDGE,\n PC ACT, CBI\u00adIII, ROHINI COURTS, DELHI\n\n Sukhdata Chits Pvt Ltd. ......Petitioner\n\n Versus\n\n Hemant Goel ....Respondent\n\nRevision received on assignment on : 05.12.2015\nDate of hearing arguments : 14.12.2015\nDate of order : 14.12.2015\n\n\nORDER :\n\n1. This is a revision petition against the order dated 17/11/2015 passed by Ld. MM\u00ad03 North\u00adWest, Rohini Courts, Delhi whereby application under section 156(3) Cr. P. C. filed by the respondent/complainant was allowed and SHO of the concerned Police Station was directed to register FIR.\n2. Briefly stating, the facts relevant for the disposal of the present revision petition are that the petitioner is a chit fund company and is operated by its Directors - Sh. Prem Kumar Arya and Sh.Sukhdata Chits Pvt Ltd. v. Hemant Goel Pradeep Arya. Respondent was induced to invest his hard earned money with the petitioner company. Respondent invested his hard earned money vide Chit bearing no. PP\u00ad32 and PP\u00ad40. Respondent paid full installments for the chit no. PP\u00ad32 which matured in January 2010 but the petitioner\u00adaccused neither auctioned the chit on date fixed nor intimated the date regarding auction in future. Despite requests for release of matured amount of chit No. PP\u00ad32, the same was not released even after lapse of five\u00adsix months and the petitioner promised to pay interest on the matured chit amount which was to be adjusted in another chit bearing no. PP\u00ad40. However, nothing was released towards these chits. Respondent filed a complaint dated 8.8.2012 in the concerned Police Station but no action was taken.\n3. It is further the case of the respondent that Rs.5000/\u00ad was paid in September, 2012 and, thereafter, Rs.30,000/\u00ad was released in six installments of Rs.5000/\u00ad from November, 2012 to June, 2013, thereby leaving balance of Rs.3,15,000/\u00ad. The respondent was also threatened of dire consequences. On these allegations, a complaint under Section 200 Cr. P. C. along with an application u/s 156 (3) Cr. P. C. was made before the Ld. MM.\n4. Status report was called from the concerned Police Station. As per status report, from the averments of the complaint no offence is Sukhdata Chits Pvt Ltd. v. Hemant Goel made out.\n5. I have heard Sh. S S Mittal, Ld. Counsel for the petitioner and Sh. B B Jain, Ld. Counsel for the respondent. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner has contended that respondent has falsely stated in his complaint that no intimation was sent to the respondent regarding the auction as he has himself filed such intimation letters with his complaint u/s 200 Cr.PC. According to learned Counsel, the said complaint does not disclose any criminal offence and the same has been filed just to put pressure upon the petitioner.\n6. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for the respondent has contended that the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is barred u/s 64 (5) of the Chit Fund Act. According to him, there is no infirmity in the order passed by the trial court.\n7. I have gone through the trial court record including the status report filed by the Police.\n8. Though the respondent has claimed that he did not receive any intimation letters regarding the auction of the chit but the intimation letters are on record and were filed by him before the trial court. There is a growing tendency in business circles to convert purely civil disputes into criminal cases as civil law remedies are time consuming and do not adequately protect the interests of lenders. Time Sukhdata Chits Pvt Ltd. v. Hemant Goel and again, through several judgments, Apex Court has held that any effort to settle civil disputes, which do not involve any criminal offence, by applying pressure through criminal prosecution should be deprecated and discouraged. Though not referred to or relied upon, for taking this view I am supported with the judgments \u00ad Indian Oil Corporation Vs. NEPC India Ltd, (2006) 6 SCC 736 and G Sagar Suri Vs. State of U.P, AIR 2000 SC 754.\n7. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, I am of the opinion that there is no clear material on record to proceed against the petitioner u/s 156 (3) Cr.PC for registration of the FIR. Thus, the direction u/s 156 (3) Cr.PC is not warranted in the present case. Though not referred to or relied upon, the present case is squarely covered by the recent judgment of Apex Court reported as Ramdev Food Products Vs. State of Gujarat, AIR 2015 SC 1742.\n8. Though not referred to or relied upon, recently Apex Court has held in judgment\u00adPriyanka Sivastava Vs. State of UP, AIR 2015 SC 1758 that application u/s 156 (3) Cr.PC is to be supported by an affidavit duly sworn by applicant seeking invocation of jurisdiction u/s 156 (3) Cr.PC. A perusal of the trial court record shows that no such affidavit was filed in support of the application under Section 156 (3) Cr. P. C. As such, the application u/s 156 (3) Cr.PC is liable to be Sukhdata Chits Pvt Ltd. v. Hemant Goel dismissed on this count also.\n9. In these circumstances and for the above said reasons, the present revision petition is allowed. The impugned order passed by the trial court is set aside. The application u/s 156 (3) Cr.PC filed on behalf of the respondent is dismissed. Trial Court record be sent back with a copy of order and revision file be consigned to record room.\nAnnounced in open (Praveen Kumar) court today on 14.12.2015. Special Judge (PC Act), CBI\u00adIII, Rohini Courts, Delhi.\nSukhdata Chits Pvt Ltd. v. Hemant Goel Sukhdata Chits Pvt Ltd. v. Hemant Goel"}" data-sheets-userformat="{"2":14653,"3":{"1":0,"3":1},"5":{"1":[{"1":2,"2":0,"5":{"1":2,"2":0}},{"1":0,"2":0,"3":3},{"1":1,"2":0,"4":1}]},"6":{"1":[{"1":2,"2":0,"5":{"1":2,"2":0}},{"1":0,"2":0,"3":3},{"1":1,"2":0,"4":1}]},"7":{"1":[{"1":2,"2":0,"5":{"1":2,"2":0}},{"1":0,"2":0,"3":3},{"1":1,"2":0,"4":1}]},"8":{"1":[{"1":2,"2":0,"5":{"1":2,"2":0}},{"1":0,"2":0,"3":3},{"1":1,"2":0,"4":1}]},"11":4,"14":{"1":2,"2":0},"15":"Arial","16":10}">Sukhdata Chits Pvt Ltd vs Hemant Goel on 14 December, 2015 Author: Sh. Parveen Kumar IN THE COURT OF PRAVEEN KUMAR, SPECIAL JUDGE, PC ACT, CBIIII, ROHINI COURTS, DELHI Sukhdata Chits Pvt Ltd. ......Petitioner Versus Hemant Goel ....Respondent Revision received on assignment on : 05.12.2015 Date of hearing arguments : 14.12.2015 Date of order : 14.12.2015 ORDER : 1. This is a revision petition against the order dated 17/11/2015 passed by Ld. MM03 NorthWest, Rohini Courts, Delhi whereby application under section 156(3) Cr. P. C. filed by the respondent/complainant was allowed and SHO of the concerned Police Station was directed to register FIR.<span style="font-size: 100%;" data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"Sukhdata Chits Pvt Ltd vs Hemant Goel on 14 December, 2015\nAuthor: Sh. Parveen Kumar\n IN THE COURT OF PRAVEEN KUMAR, SPECIAL JUDGE,\n PC ACT, CBI\u00adIII, ROHINI COURTS, DELHI\n\n Sukhdata Chits Pvt Ltd. ......Petitioner\n\n Versus\n\n Hemant Goel ....Respondent\n\nRevision received on assignment on : 05.12.2015\nDate of hearing arguments : 14.12.2015\nDate of order : 14.12.2015\n\n\nORDER :\n\n1. This is a revision petition against the order dated 17/11/2015 passed by Ld. MM\u00ad03 North\u00adWest, Rohini Courts, Delhi whereby application under section 156(3) Cr. P. C. filed by the respondent/complainant was allowed and SHO of the concerned Police Station was directed to register FIR.\n2. Briefly stating, the facts relevant for the disposal of the present revision petition are that the petitioner is a chit fund company and is operated by its Directors - Sh. Prem Kumar Arya and Sh.Sukhdata Chits Pvt Ltd. v. Hemant Goel Pradeep Arya. Respondent was induced to invest his hard earned money with the petitioner company. Respondent invested his hard earned money vide Chit bearing no. PP\u00ad32 and PP\u00ad40. Respondent paid full installments for the chit no. PP\u00ad32 which matured in January 2010 but the petitioner\u00adaccused neither auctioned the chit on date fixed nor intimated the date regarding auction in future. Despite requests for release of matured amount of chit No. PP\u00ad32, the same was not released even after lapse of five\u00adsix months and the petitioner promised to pay interest on the matured chit amount which was to be adjusted in another chit bearing no. PP\u00ad40. However, nothing was released towards these chits. Respondent filed a complaint dated 8.8.2012 in the concerned Police Station but no action was taken.\n3. It is further the case of the respondent that Rs.5000/\u00ad was paid in September, 2012 and, thereafter, Rs.30,000/\u00ad was released in six installments of Rs.5000/\u00ad from November, 2012 to June, 2013, thereby leaving balance of Rs.3,15,000/\u00ad. The respondent was also threatened of dire consequences. On these allegations, a complaint under Section 200 Cr. P. C. along with an application u/s 156 (3) Cr. P. C. was made before the Ld. MM.\n4. Status report was called from the concerned Police Station. As per status report, from the averments of the complaint no offence is Sukhdata Chits Pvt Ltd. v. Hemant Goel made out.\n5. I have heard Sh. S S Mittal, Ld. Counsel for the petitioner and Sh. B B Jain, Ld. Counsel for the respondent. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner has contended that respondent has falsely stated in his complaint that no intimation was sent to the respondent regarding the auction as he has himself filed such intimation letters with his complaint u/s 200 Cr.PC. According to learned Counsel, the said complaint does not disclose any criminal offence and the same has been filed just to put pressure upon the petitioner.\n6. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for the respondent has contended that the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is barred u/s 64 (5) of the Chit Fund Act. According to him, there is no infirmity in the order passed by the trial court.\n7. I have gone through the trial court record including the status report filed by the Police.\n8. Though the respondent has claimed that he did not receive any intimation letters regarding the auction of the chit but the intimation letters are on record and were filed by him before the trial court. There is a growing tendency in business circles to convert purely civil disputes into criminal cases as civil law remedies are time consuming and do not adequately protect the interests of lenders. Time Sukhdata Chits Pvt Ltd. v. Hemant Goel and again, through several judgments, Apex Court has held that any effort to settle civil disputes, which do not involve any criminal offence, by applying pressure through criminal prosecution should be deprecated and discouraged. Though not referred to or relied upon, for taking this view I am supported with the judgments \u00ad Indian Oil Corporation Vs. NEPC India Ltd, (2006) 6 SCC 736 and G Sagar Suri Vs. State of U.P, AIR 2000 SC 754.\n7. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, I am of the opinion that there is no clear material on record to proceed against the petitioner u/s 156 (3) Cr.PC for registration of the FIR. Thus, the direction u/s 156 (3) Cr.PC is not warranted in the present case. Though not referred to or relied upon, the present case is squarely covered by the recent judgment of Apex Court reported as Ramdev Food Products Vs. State of Gujarat, AIR 2015 SC 1742.\n8. Though not referred to or relied upon, recently Apex Court has held in judgment\u00adPriyanka Sivastava Vs. State of UP, AIR 2015 SC 1758 that application u/s 156 (3) Cr.PC is to be supported by an affidavit duly sworn by applicant seeking invocation of jurisdiction u/s 156 (3) Cr.PC. A perusal of the trial court record shows that no such affidavit was filed in support of the application under Section 156 (3) Cr. P. C. As such, the application u/s 156 (3) Cr.PC is liable to be Sukhdata Chits Pvt Ltd. v. Hemant Goel dismissed on this count also.\n9. In these circumstances and for the above said reasons, the present revision petition is allowed. The impugned order passed by the trial court is set aside. The application u/s 156 (3) Cr.PC filed on behalf of the respondent is dismissed. Trial Court record be sent back with a copy of order and revision file be consigned to record room.\nAnnounced in open (Praveen Kumar) court today on 14.12.2015. Special Judge (PC Act), CBI\u00adIII, Rohini Courts, Delhi.\nSukhdata Chits Pvt Ltd. v. Hemant Goel Sukhdata Chits Pvt Ltd. v. Hemant Goel"}" data-sheets-userformat="{"2":14653,"3":{"1":0,"3":1},"5":{"1":[{"1":2,"2":0,"5":{"1":2,"2":0}},{"1":0,"2":0,"3":3},{"1":1,"2":0,"4":1}]},"6":{"1":[{"1":2,"2":0,"5":{"1":2,"2":0}},{"1":0,"2":0,"3":3},{"1":1,"2":0,"4":1}]},"7":{"1":[{"1":2,"2":0,"5":{"1":2,"2":0}},{"1":0,"2":0,"3":3},{"1":1,"2":0,"4":1}]},"8":{"1":[{"1":2,"2":0,"5":{"1":2,"2":0}},{"1":0,"2":0,"3":3},{"1":1,"2":0,"4":1}]},"11":4,"14":{"1":2,"2":0},"15":"Arial","16":10}"> 2. Briefly stating, the facts relevant for the disposal of the present revision petition are that the petitioner is a chit fund company and is operated by its Directors - Sh. Prem Kumar Arya and Sh.Sukhdata Chits Pvt Ltd. v. Hemant Goel Pradeep Arya. Respondent was induced to invest his hard earned money with the petitioner company. Respondent invested his hard earned money vide Chit bearing no. PP32 and PP40. Respondent paid full installments for the chit no. PP32 which matured in January 2010 but the petitioneraccused neither auctioned the chit on date fixed nor intimated the date regarding auction in future. Despite requests for release of matured amount of chit No. PP32, the same was not released even after lapse of fivesix months and the petitioner promised to pay interest on the matured chit amount which was to be adjusted in another chit bearing no. PP40. However, nothing was released towards these chits. Respondent filed a complaint dated 8.8.2012 in the concerned Police Station but no action was taken.<span style="font-size: 100%;" data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"Sukhdata Chits Pvt Ltd vs Hemant Goel on 14 December, 2015\nAuthor: Sh. Parveen Kumar\n IN THE COURT OF PRAVEEN KUMAR, SPECIAL JUDGE,\n PC ACT, CBI\u00adIII, ROHINI COURTS, DELHI\n\n Sukhdata Chits Pvt Ltd. ......Petitioner\n\n Versus\n\n Hemant Goel ....Respondent\n\nRevision received on assignment on : 05.12.2015\nDate of hearing arguments : 14.12.2015\nDate of order : 14.12.2015\n\n\nORDER :\n\n1. This is a revision petition against the order dated 17/11/2015 passed by Ld. MM\u00ad03 North\u00adWest, Rohini Courts, Delhi whereby application under section 156(3) Cr. P. C. filed by the respondent/complainant was allowed and SHO of the concerned Police Station was directed to register FIR.\n2. Briefly stating, the facts relevant for the disposal of the present revision petition are that the petitioner is a chit fund company and is operated by its Directors - Sh. Prem Kumar Arya and Sh.Sukhdata Chits Pvt Ltd. v. Hemant Goel Pradeep Arya. Respondent was induced to invest his hard earned money with the petitioner company. Respondent invested his hard earned money vide Chit bearing no. PP\u00ad32 and PP\u00ad40. Respondent paid full installments for the chit no. PP\u00ad32 which matured in January 2010 but the petitioner\u00adaccused neither auctioned the chit on date fixed nor intimated the date regarding auction in future. Despite requests for release of matured amount of chit No. PP\u00ad32, the same was not released even after lapse of five\u00adsix months and the petitioner promised to pay interest on the matured chit amount which was to be adjusted in another chit bearing no. PP\u00ad40. However, nothing was released towards these chits. Respondent filed a complaint dated 8.8.2012 in the concerned Police Station but no action was taken.\n3. It is further the case of the respondent that Rs.5000/\u00ad was paid in September, 2012 and, thereafter, Rs.30,000/\u00ad was released in six installments of Rs.5000/\u00ad from November, 2012 to June, 2013, thereby leaving balance of Rs.3,15,000/\u00ad. The respondent was also threatened of dire consequences. On these allegations, a complaint under Section 200 Cr. P. C. along with an application u/s 156 (3) Cr. P. C. was made before the Ld. MM.\n4. Status report was called from the concerned Police Station. As per status report, from the averments of the complaint no offence is Sukhdata Chits Pvt Ltd. v. Hemant Goel made out.\n5. I have heard Sh. S S Mittal, Ld. Counsel for the petitioner and Sh. B B Jain, Ld. Counsel for the respondent. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner has contended that respondent has falsely stated in his complaint that no intimation was sent to the respondent regarding the auction as he has himself filed such intimation letters with his complaint u/s 200 Cr.PC. According to learned Counsel, the said complaint does not disclose any criminal offence and the same has been filed just to put pressure upon the petitioner.\n6. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for the respondent has contended that the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is barred u/s 64 (5) of the Chit Fund Act. According to him, there is no infirmity in the order passed by the trial court.\n7. I have gone through the trial court record including the status report filed by the Police.\n8. Though the respondent has claimed that he did not receive any intimation letters regarding the auction of the chit but the intimation letters are on record and were filed by him before the trial court. There is a growing tendency in business circles to convert purely civil disputes into criminal cases as civil law remedies are time consuming and do not adequately protect the interests of lenders. Time Sukhdata Chits Pvt Ltd. v. Hemant Goel and again, through several judgments, Apex Court has held that any effort to settle civil disputes, which do not involve any criminal offence, by applying pressure through criminal prosecution should be deprecated and discouraged. Though not referred to or relied upon, for taking this view I am supported with the judgments \u00ad Indian Oil Corporation Vs. NEPC India Ltd, (2006) 6 SCC 736 and G Sagar Suri Vs. State of U.P, AIR 2000 SC 754.\n7. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, I am of the opinion that there is no clear material on record to proceed against the petitioner u/s 156 (3) Cr.PC for registration of the FIR. Thus, the direction u/s 156 (3) Cr.PC is not warranted in the present case. Though not referred to or relied upon, the present case is squarely covered by the recent judgment of Apex Court reported as Ramdev Food Products Vs. State of Gujarat, AIR 2015 SC 1742.\n8. Though not referred to or relied upon, recently Apex Court has held in judgment\u00adPriyanka Sivastava Vs. State of UP, AIR 2015 SC 1758 that application u/s 156 (3) Cr.PC is to be supported by an affidavit duly sworn by applicant seeking invocation of jurisdiction u/s 156 (3) Cr.PC. A perusal of the trial court record shows that no such affidavit was filed in support of the application under Section 156 (3) Cr. P. C. As such, the application u/s 156 (3) Cr.PC is liable to be Sukhdata Chits Pvt Ltd. v. Hemant Goel dismissed on this count also.\n9. In these circumstances and for the above said reasons, the present revision petition is allowed. The impugned order passed by the trial court is set aside. The application u/s 156 (3) Cr.PC filed on behalf of the respondent is dismissed. Trial Court record be sent back with a copy of order and revision file be consigned to record room.\nAnnounced in open (Praveen Kumar) court today on 14.12.2015. Special Judge (PC Act), CBI\u00adIII, Rohini Courts, Delhi.\nSukhdata Chits Pvt Ltd. v. Hemant Goel Sukhdata Chits Pvt Ltd. v. Hemant Goel"}" data-sheets-userformat="{"2":14653,"3":{"1":0,"3":1},"5":{"1":[{"1":2,"2":0,"5":{"1":2,"2":0}},{"1":0,"2":0,"3":3},{"1":1,"2":0,"4":1}]},"6":{"1":[{"1":2,"2":0,"5":{"1":2,"2":0}},{"1":0,"2":0,"3":3},{"1":1,"2":0,"4":1}]},"7":{"1":[{"1":2,"2":0,"5":{"1":2,"2":0}},{"1":0,"2":0,"3":3},{"1":1,"2":0,"4":1}]},"8":{"1":[{"1":2,"2":0,"5":{"1":2,"2":0}},{"1":0,"2":0,"3":3},{"1":1,"2":0,"4":1}]},"11":4,"14":{"1":2,"2":0},"15":"Arial","16":10}"> 3. It is further the case of the respondent that Rs.5000/ was paid in September, 2012 and, thereafter, Rs.30,000/ was released in six installments of Rs.5000/ from November, 2012 to June, 2013, thereby leaving balance of Rs.3,15,000/. The respondent was also threatened of dire consequences. On these allegations, a complaint under Section 200 Cr. P. C. along with an application u/s 156 (3) Cr. P. C. was made before the Ld. MM.<span style="font-size: 100%;" data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"Sukhdata Chits Pvt Ltd vs Hemant Goel on 14 December, 2015\nAuthor: Sh. Parveen Kumar\n IN THE COURT OF PRAVEEN KUMAR, SPECIAL JUDGE,\n PC ACT, CBI\u00adIII, ROHINI COURTS, DELHI\n\n Sukhdata Chits Pvt Ltd. ......Petitioner\n\n Versus\n\n Hemant Goel ....Respondent\n\nRevision received on assignment on : 05.12.2015\nDate of hearing arguments : 14.12.2015\nDate of order : 14.12.2015\n\n\nORDER :\n\n1. This is a revision petition against the order dated 17/11/2015 passed by Ld. MM\u00ad03 North\u00adWest, Rohini Courts, Delhi whereby application under section 156(3) Cr. P. C. filed by the respondent/complainant was allowed and SHO of the concerned Police Station was directed to register FIR.\n2. Briefly stating, the facts relevant for the disposal of the present revision petition are that the petitioner is a chit fund company and is operated by its Directors - Sh. Prem Kumar Arya and Sh.Sukhdata Chits Pvt Ltd. v. Hemant Goel Pradeep Arya. Respondent was induced to invest his hard earned money with the petitioner company. Respondent invested his hard earned money vide Chit bearing no. PP\u00ad32 and PP\u00ad40. Respondent paid full installments for the chit no. PP\u00ad32 which matured in January 2010 but the petitioner\u00adaccused neither auctioned the chit on date fixed nor intimated the date regarding auction in future. Despite requests for release of matured amount of chit No. PP\u00ad32, the same was not released even after lapse of five\u00adsix months and the petitioner promised to pay interest on the matured chit amount which was to be adjusted in another chit bearing no. PP\u00ad40. However, nothing was released towards these chits. Respondent filed a complaint dated 8.8.2012 in the concerned Police Station but no action was taken.\n3. It is further the case of the respondent that Rs.5000/\u00ad was paid in September, 2012 and, thereafter, Rs.30,000/\u00ad was released in six installments of Rs.5000/\u00ad from November, 2012 to June, 2013, thereby leaving balance of Rs.3,15,000/\u00ad. The respondent was also threatened of dire consequences. On these allegations, a complaint under Section 200 Cr. P. C. along with an application u/s 156 (3) Cr. P. C. was made before the Ld. MM.\n4. Status report was called from the concerned Police Station. As per status report, from the averments of the complaint no offence is Sukhdata Chits Pvt Ltd. v. Hemant Goel made out.\n5. I have heard Sh. S S Mittal, Ld. Counsel for the petitioner and Sh. B B Jain, Ld. Counsel for the respondent. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner has contended that respondent has falsely stated in his complaint that no intimation was sent to the respondent regarding the auction as he has himself filed such intimation letters with his complaint u/s 200 Cr.PC. According to learned Counsel, the said complaint does not disclose any criminal offence and the same has been filed just to put pressure upon the petitioner.\n6. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for the respondent has contended that the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is barred u/s 64 (5) of the Chit Fund Act. According to him, there is no infirmity in the order passed by the trial court.\n7. I have gone through the trial court record including the status report filed by the Police.\n8. Though the respondent has claimed that he did not receive any intimation letters regarding the auction of the chit but the intimation letters are on record and were filed by him before the trial court. There is a growing tendency in business circles to convert purely civil disputes into criminal cases as civil law remedies are time consuming and do not adequately protect the interests of lenders. Time Sukhdata Chits Pvt Ltd. v. Hemant Goel and again, through several judgments, Apex Court has held that any effort to settle civil disputes, which do not involve any criminal offence, by applying pressure through criminal prosecution should be deprecated and discouraged. Though not referred to or relied upon, for taking this view I am supported with the judgments \u00ad Indian Oil Corporation Vs. NEPC India Ltd, (2006) 6 SCC 736 and G Sagar Suri Vs. State of U.P, AIR 2000 SC 754.\n7. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, I am of the opinion that there is no clear material on record to proceed against the petitioner u/s 156 (3) Cr.PC for registration of the FIR. Thus, the direction u/s 156 (3) Cr.PC is not warranted in the present case. Though not referred to or relied upon, the present case is squarely covered by the recent judgment of Apex Court reported as Ramdev Food Products Vs. State of Gujarat, AIR 2015 SC 1742.\n8. Though not referred to or relied upon, recently Apex Court has held in judgment\u00adPriyanka Sivastava Vs. State of UP, AIR 2015 SC 1758 that application u/s 156 (3) Cr.PC is to be supported by an affidavit duly sworn by applicant seeking invocation of jurisdiction u/s 156 (3) Cr.PC. A perusal of the trial court record shows that no such affidavit was filed in support of the application under Section 156 (3) Cr. P. C. As such, the application u/s 156 (3) Cr.PC is liable to be Sukhdata Chits Pvt Ltd. v. Hemant Goel dismissed on this count also.\n9. In these circumstances and for the above said reasons, the present revision petition is allowed. The impugned order passed by the trial court is set aside. The application u/s 156 (3) Cr.PC filed on behalf of the respondent is dismissed. Trial Court record be sent back with a copy of order and revision file be consigned to record room.\nAnnounced in open (Praveen Kumar) court today on 14.12.2015. Special Judge (PC Act), CBI\u00adIII, Rohini Courts, Delhi.\nSukhdata Chits Pvt Ltd. v. Hemant Goel Sukhdata Chits Pvt Ltd. v. Hemant Goel"}" data-sheets-userformat="{"2":14653,"3":{"1":0,"3":1},"5":{"1":[{"1":2,"2":0,"5":{"1":2,"2":0}},{"1":0,"2":0,"3":3},{"1":1,"2":0,"4":1}]},"6":{"1":[{"1":2,"2":0,"5":{"1":2,"2":0}},{"1":0,"2":0,"3":3},{"1":1,"2":0,"4":1}]},"7":{"1":[{"1":2,"2":0,"5":{"1":2,"2":0}},{"1":0,"2":0,"3":3},{"1":1,"2":0,"4":1}]},"8":{"1":[{"1":2,"2":0,"5":{"1":2,"2":0}},{"1":0,"2":0,"3":3},{"1":1,"2":0,"4":1}]},"11":4,"14":{"1":2,"2":0},"15":"Arial","16":10}"> 4. Status report was called from the concerned Police Station. As per status report, from the averments of the complaint no offence is Sukhdata Chits Pvt Ltd. v. Hemant Goel made out.<span style="font-size: 100%;" data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"Sukhdata Chits Pvt Ltd vs Hemant Goel on 14 December, 2015\nAuthor: Sh. Parveen Kumar\n IN THE COURT OF PRAVEEN KUMAR, SPECIAL JUDGE,\n PC ACT, CBI\u00adIII, ROHINI COURTS, DELHI\n\n Sukhdata Chits Pvt Ltd. ......Petitioner\n\n Versus\n\n Hemant Goel ....Respondent\n\nRevision received on assignment on : 05.12.2015\nDate of hearing arguments : 14.12.2015\nDate of order : 14.12.2015\n\n\nORDER :\n\n1. This is a revision petition against the order dated 17/11/2015 passed by Ld. MM\u00ad03 North\u00adWest, Rohini Courts, Delhi whereby application under section 156(3) Cr. P. C. filed by the respondent/complainant was allowed and SHO of the concerned Police Station was directed to register FIR.\n2. Briefly stating, the facts relevant for the disposal of the present revision petition are that the petitioner is a chit fund company and is operated by its Directors - Sh. Prem Kumar Arya and Sh.Sukhdata Chits Pvt Ltd. v. Hemant Goel Pradeep Arya. Respondent was induced to invest his hard earned money with the petitioner company. Respondent invested his hard earned money vide Chit bearing no. PP\u00ad32 and PP\u00ad40. Respondent paid full installments for the chit no. PP\u00ad32 which matured in January 2010 but the petitioner\u00adaccused neither auctioned the chit on date fixed nor intimated the date regarding auction in future. Despite requests for release of matured amount of chit No. PP\u00ad32, the same was not released even after lapse of five\u00adsix months and the petitioner promised to pay interest on the matured chit amount which was to be adjusted in another chit bearing no. PP\u00ad40. However, nothing was released towards these chits. Respondent filed a complaint dated 8.8.2012 in the concerned Police Station but no action was taken.\n3. It is further the case of the respondent that Rs.5000/\u00ad was paid in September, 2012 and, thereafter, Rs.30,000/\u00ad was released in six installments of Rs.5000/\u00ad from November, 2012 to June, 2013, thereby leaving balance of Rs.3,15,000/\u00ad. The respondent was also threatened of dire consequences. On these allegations, a complaint under Section 200 Cr. P. C. along with an application u/s 156 (3) Cr. P. C. was made before the Ld. MM.\n4. Status report was called from the concerned Police Station. As per status report, from the averments of the complaint no offence is Sukhdata Chits Pvt Ltd. v. Hemant Goel made out.\n5. I have heard Sh. S S Mittal, Ld. Counsel for the petitioner and Sh. B B Jain, Ld. Counsel for the respondent. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner has contended that respondent has falsely stated in his complaint that no intimation was sent to the respondent regarding the auction as he has himself filed such intimation letters with his complaint u/s 200 Cr.PC. According to learned Counsel, the said complaint does not disclose any criminal offence and the same has been filed just to put pressure upon the petitioner.\n6. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for the respondent has contended that the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is barred u/s 64 (5) of the Chit Fund Act. According to him, there is no infirmity in the order passed by the trial court.\n7. I have gone through the trial court record including the status report filed by the Police.\n8. Though the respondent has claimed that he did not receive any intimation letters regarding the auction of the chit but the intimation letters are on record and were filed by him before the trial court. There is a growing tendency in business circles to convert purely civil disputes into criminal cases as civil law remedies are time consuming and do not adequately protect the interests of lenders. Time Sukhdata Chits Pvt Ltd. v. Hemant Goel and again, through several judgments, Apex Court has held that any effort to settle civil disputes, which do not involve any criminal offence, by applying pressure through criminal prosecution should be deprecated and discouraged. Though not referred to or relied upon, for taking this view I am supported with the judgments \u00ad Indian Oil Corporation Vs. NEPC India Ltd, (2006) 6 SCC 736 and G Sagar Suri Vs. State of U.P, AIR 2000 SC 754.\n7. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, I am of the opinion that there is no clear material on record to proceed against the petitioner u/s 156 (3) Cr.PC for registration of the FIR. Thus, the direction u/s 156 (3) Cr.PC is not warranted in the present case. Though not referred to or relied upon, the present case is squarely covered by the recent judgment of Apex Court reported as Ramdev Food Products Vs. State of Gujarat, AIR 2015 SC 1742.\n8. Though not referred to or relied upon, recently Apex Court has held in judgment\u00adPriyanka Sivastava Vs. State of UP, AIR 2015 SC 1758 that application u/s 156 (3) Cr.PC is to be supported by an affidavit duly sworn by applicant seeking invocation of jurisdiction u/s 156 (3) Cr.PC. A perusal of the trial court record shows that no such affidavit was filed in support of the application under Section 156 (3) Cr. P. C. As such, the application u/s 156 (3) Cr.PC is liable to be Sukhdata Chits Pvt Ltd. v. Hemant Goel dismissed on this count also.\n9. In these circumstances and for the above said reasons, the present revision petition is allowed. The impugned order passed by the trial court is set aside. The application u/s 156 (3) Cr.PC filed on behalf of the respondent is dismissed. Trial Court record be sent back with a copy of order and revision file be consigned to record room.\nAnnounced in open (Praveen Kumar) court today on 14.12.2015. Special Judge (PC Act), CBI\u00adIII, Rohini Courts, Delhi.\nSukhdata Chits Pvt Ltd. v. Hemant Goel Sukhdata Chits Pvt Ltd. v. Hemant Goel"}" data-sheets-userformat="{"2":14653,"3":{"1":0,"3":1},"5":{"1":[{"1":2,"2":0,"5":{"1":2,"2":0}},{"1":0,"2":0,"3":3},{"1":1,"2":0,"4":1}]},"6":{"1":[{"1":2,"2":0,"5":{"1":2,"2":0}},{"1":0,"2":0,"3":3},{"1":1,"2":0,"4":1}]},"7":{"1":[{"1":2,"2":0,"5":{"1":2,"2":0}},{"1":0,"2":0,"3":3},{"1":1,"2":0,"4":1}]},"8":{"1":[{"1":2,"2":0,"5":{"1":2,"2":0}},{"1":0,"2":0,"3":3},{"1":1,"2":0,"4":1}]},"11":4,"14":{"1":2,"2":0},"15":"Arial","16":10}"> 5. I have heard Sh. S S Mittal, Ld. Counsel for the petitioner and Sh. B B Jain, Ld. Counsel for the respondent. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner has contended that respondent has falsely stated in his complaint that no intimation was sent to the respondent regarding the auction as he has himself filed such intimation letters with his complaint u/s 200 Cr.PC. According to learned Counsel, the said complaint does not disclose any criminal offence and the same has been filed just to put pressure upon the petitioner.<span style="font-size: 100%;" data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"Sukhdata Chits Pvt Ltd vs Hemant Goel on 14 December, 2015\nAuthor: Sh. Parveen Kumar\n IN THE COURT OF PRAVEEN KUMAR, SPECIAL JUDGE,\n PC ACT, CBI\u00adIII, ROHINI COURTS, DELHI\n\n Sukhdata Chits Pvt Ltd. ......Petitioner\n\n Versus\n\n Hemant Goel ....Respondent\n\nRevision received on assignment on : 05.12.2015\nDate of hearing arguments : 14.12.2015\nDate of order : 14.12.2015\n\n\nORDER :\n\n1. This is a revision petition against the order dated 17/11/2015 passed by Ld. MM\u00ad03 North\u00adWest, Rohini Courts, Delhi whereby application under section 156(3) Cr. P. C. filed by the respondent/complainant was allowed and SHO of the concerned Police Station was directed to register FIR.\n2. Briefly stating, the facts relevant for the disposal of the present revision petition are that the petitioner is a chit fund company and is operated by its Directors - Sh. Prem Kumar Arya and Sh.Sukhdata Chits Pvt Ltd. v. Hemant Goel Pradeep Arya. Respondent was induced to invest his hard earned money with the petitioner company. Respondent invested his hard earned money vide Chit bearing no. PP\u00ad32 and PP\u00ad40. Respondent paid full installments for the chit no. PP\u00ad32 which matured in January 2010 but the petitioner\u00adaccused neither auctioned the chit on date fixed nor intimated the date regarding auction in future. Despite requests for release of matured amount of chit No. PP\u00ad32, the same was not released even after lapse of five\u00adsix months and the petitioner promised to pay interest on the matured chit amount which was to be adjusted in another chit bearing no. PP\u00ad40. However, nothing was released towards these chits. Respondent filed a complaint dated 8.8.2012 in the concerned Police Station but no action was taken.\n3. It is further the case of the respondent that Rs.5000/\u00ad was paid in September, 2012 and, thereafter, Rs.30,000/\u00ad was released in six installments of Rs.5000/\u00ad from November, 2012 to June, 2013, thereby leaving balance of Rs.3,15,000/\u00ad. The respondent was also threatened of dire consequences. On these allegations, a complaint under Section 200 Cr. P. C. along with an application u/s 156 (3) Cr. P. C. was made before the Ld. MM.\n4. Status report was called from the concerned Police Station. As per status report, from the averments of the complaint no offence is Sukhdata Chits Pvt Ltd. v. Hemant Goel made out.\n5. I have heard Sh. S S Mittal, Ld. Counsel for the petitioner and Sh. B B Jain, Ld. Counsel for the respondent. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner has contended that respondent has falsely stated in his complaint that no intimation was sent to the respondent regarding the auction as he has himself filed such intimation letters with his complaint u/s 200 Cr.PC. According to learned Counsel, the said complaint does not disclose any criminal offence and the same has been filed just to put pressure upon the petitioner.\n6. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for the respondent has contended that the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is barred u/s 64 (5) of the Chit Fund Act. According to him, there is no infirmity in the order passed by the trial court.\n7. I have gone through the trial court record including the status report filed by the Police.\n8. Though the respondent has claimed that he did not receive any intimation letters regarding the auction of the chit but the intimation letters are on record and were filed by him before the trial court. There is a growing tendency in business circles to convert purely civil disputes into criminal cases as civil law remedies are time consuming and do not adequately protect the interests of lenders. Time Sukhdata Chits Pvt Ltd. v. Hemant Goel and again, through several judgments, Apex Court has held that any effort to settle civil disputes, which do not involve any criminal offence, by applying pressure through criminal prosecution should be deprecated and discouraged. Though not referred to or relied upon, for taking this view I am supported with the judgments \u00ad Indian Oil Corporation Vs. NEPC India Ltd, (2006) 6 SCC 736 and G Sagar Suri Vs. State of U.P, AIR 2000 SC 754.\n7. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, I am of the opinion that there is no clear material on record to proceed against the petitioner u/s 156 (3) Cr.PC for registration of the FIR. Thus, the direction u/s 156 (3) Cr.PC is not warranted in the present case. Though not referred to or relied upon, the present case is squarely covered by the recent judgment of Apex Court reported as Ramdev Food Products Vs. State of Gujarat, AIR 2015 SC 1742.\n8. Though not referred to or relied upon, recently Apex Court has held in judgment\u00adPriyanka Sivastava Vs. State of UP, AIR 2015 SC 1758 that application u/s 156 (3) Cr.PC is to be supported by an affidavit duly sworn by applicant seeking invocation of jurisdiction u/s 156 (3) Cr.PC. A perusal of the trial court record shows that no such affidavit was filed in support of the application under Section 156 (3) Cr. P. C. As such, the application u/s 156 (3) Cr.PC is liable to be Sukhdata Chits Pvt Ltd. v. Hemant Goel dismissed on this count also.\n9. In these circumstances and for the above said reasons, the present revision petition is allowed. The impugned order passed by the trial court is set aside. The application u/s 156 (3) Cr.PC filed on behalf of the respondent is dismissed. Trial Court record be sent back with a copy of order and revision file be consigned to record room.\nAnnounced in open (Praveen Kumar) court today on 14.12.2015. Special Judge (PC Act), CBI\u00adIII, Rohini Courts, Delhi.\nSukhdata Chits Pvt Ltd. v. Hemant Goel Sukhdata Chits Pvt Ltd. v. Hemant Goel"}" data-sheets-userformat="{"2":14653,"3":{"1":0,"3":1},"5":{"1":[{"1":2,"2":0,"5":{"1":2,"2":0}},{"1":0,"2":0,"3":3},{"1":1,"2":0,"4":1}]},"6":{"1":[{"1":2,"2":0,"5":{"1":2,"2":0}},{"1":0,"2":0,"3":3},{"1":1,"2":0,"4":1}]},"7":{"1":[{"1":2,"2":0,"5":{"1":2,"2":0}},{"1":0,"2":0,"3":3},{"1":1,"2":0,"4":1}]},"8":{"1":[{"1":2,"2":0,"5":{"1":2,"2":0}},{"1":0,"2":0,"3":3},{"1":1,"2":0,"4":1}]},"11":4,"14":{"1":2,"2":0},"15":"Arial","16":10}"> 6. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for the respondent has contended that the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is barred u/s 64 (5) of the Chit Fund Act. According to him, there is no infirmity in the order passed by the trial court.<span style="font-size: 100%;" data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"Sukhdata Chits Pvt Ltd vs Hemant Goel on 14 December, 2015\nAuthor: Sh. Parveen Kumar\n IN THE COURT OF PRAVEEN KUMAR, SPECIAL JUDGE,\n PC ACT, CBI\u00adIII, ROHINI COURTS, DELHI\n\n Sukhdata Chits Pvt Ltd. ......Petitioner\n\n Versus\n\n Hemant Goel ....Respondent\n\nRevision received on assignment on : 05.12.2015\nDate of hearing arguments : 14.12.2015\nDate of order : 14.12.2015\n\n\nORDER :\n\n1. This is a revision petition against the order dated 17/11/2015 passed by Ld. MM\u00ad03 North\u00adWest, Rohini Courts, Delhi whereby application under section 156(3) Cr. P. C. filed by the respondent/complainant was allowed and SHO of the concerned Police Station was directed to register FIR.\n2. Briefly stating, the facts relevant for the disposal of the present revision petition are that the petitioner is a chit fund company and is operated by its Directors - Sh. Prem Kumar Arya and Sh.Sukhdata Chits Pvt Ltd. v. Hemant Goel Pradeep Arya. Respondent was induced to invest his hard earned money with the petitioner company. Respondent invested his hard earned money vide Chit bearing no. PP\u00ad32 and PP\u00ad40. Respondent paid full installments for the chit no. PP\u00ad32 which matured in January 2010 but the petitioner\u00adaccused neither auctioned the chit on date fixed nor intimated the date regarding auction in future. Despite requests for release of matured amount of chit No. PP\u00ad32, the same was not released even after lapse of five\u00adsix months and the petitioner promised to pay interest on the matured chit amount which was to be adjusted in another chit bearing no. PP\u00ad40. However, nothing was released towards these chits. Respondent filed a complaint dated 8.8.2012 in the concerned Police Station but no action was taken.\n3. It is further the case of the respondent that Rs.5000/\u00ad was paid in September, 2012 and, thereafter, Rs.30,000/\u00ad was released in six installments of Rs.5000/\u00ad from November, 2012 to June, 2013, thereby leaving balance of Rs.3,15,000/\u00ad. The respondent was also threatened of dire consequences. On these allegations, a complaint under Section 200 Cr. P. C. along with an application u/s 156 (3) Cr. P. C. was made before the Ld. MM.\n4. Status report was called from the concerned Police Station. As per status report, from the averments of the complaint no offence is Sukhdata Chits Pvt Ltd. v. Hemant Goel made out.\n5. I have heard Sh. S S Mittal, Ld. Counsel for the petitioner and Sh. B B Jain, Ld. Counsel for the respondent. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner has contended that respondent has falsely stated in his complaint that no intimation was sent to the respondent regarding the auction as he has himself filed such intimation letters with his complaint u/s 200 Cr.PC. According to learned Counsel, the said complaint does not disclose any criminal offence and the same has been filed just to put pressure upon the petitioner.\n6. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for the respondent has contended that the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is barred u/s 64 (5) of the Chit Fund Act. According to him, there is no infirmity in the order passed by the trial court.\n7. I have gone through the trial court record including the status report filed by the Police.\n8. Though the respondent has claimed that he did not receive any intimation letters regarding the auction of the chit but the intimation letters are on record and were filed by him before the trial court. There is a growing tendency in business circles to convert purely civil disputes into criminal cases as civil law remedies are time consuming and do not adequately protect the interests of lenders. Time Sukhdata Chits Pvt Ltd. v. Hemant Goel and again, through several judgments, Apex Court has held that any effort to settle civil disputes, which do not involve any criminal offence, by applying pressure through criminal prosecution should be deprecated and discouraged. Though not referred to or relied upon, for taking this view I am supported with the judgments \u00ad Indian Oil Corporation Vs. NEPC India Ltd, (2006) 6 SCC 736 and G Sagar Suri Vs. State of U.P, AIR 2000 SC 754.\n7. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, I am of the opinion that there is no clear material on record to proceed against the petitioner u/s 156 (3) Cr.PC for registration of the FIR. Thus, the direction u/s 156 (3) Cr.PC is not warranted in the present case. Though not referred to or relied upon, the present case is squarely covered by the recent judgment of Apex Court reported as Ramdev Food Products Vs. State of Gujarat, AIR 2015 SC 1742.\n8. Though not referred to or relied upon, recently Apex Court has held in judgment\u00adPriyanka Sivastava Vs. State of UP, AIR 2015 SC 1758 that application u/s 156 (3) Cr.PC is to be supported by an affidavit duly sworn by applicant seeking invocation of jurisdiction u/s 156 (3) Cr.PC. A perusal of the trial court record shows that no such affidavit was filed in support of the application under Section 156 (3) Cr. P. C. As such, the application u/s 156 (3) Cr.PC is liable to be Sukhdata Chits Pvt Ltd. v. Hemant Goel dismissed on this count also.\n9. In these circumstances and for the above said reasons, the present revision petition is allowed. The impugned order passed by the trial court is set aside. The application u/s 156 (3) Cr.PC filed on behalf of the respondent is dismissed. Trial Court record be sent back with a copy of order and revision file be consigned to record room.\nAnnounced in open (Praveen Kumar) court today on 14.12.2015. Special Judge (PC Act), CBI\u00adIII, Rohini Courts, Delhi.\nSukhdata Chits Pvt Ltd. v. Hemant Goel Sukhdata Chits Pvt Ltd. v. Hemant Goel"}" data-sheets-userformat="{"2":14653,"3":{"1":0,"3":1},"5":{"1":[{"1":2,"2":0,"5":{"1":2,"2":0}},{"1":0,"2":0,"3":3},{"1":1,"2":0,"4":1}]},"6":{"1":[{"1":2,"2":0,"5":{"1":2,"2":0}},{"1":0,"2":0,"3":3},{"1":1,"2":0,"4":1}]},"7":{"1":[{"1":2,"2":0,"5":{"1":2,"2":0}},{"1":0,"2":0,"3":3},{"1":1,"2":0,"4":1}]},"8":{"1":[{"1":2,"2":0,"5":{"1":2,"2":0}},{"1":0,"2":0,"3":3},{"1":1,"2":0,"4":1}]},"11":4,"14":{"1":2,"2":0},"15":"Arial","16":10}"> 7. I have gone through the trial court record including the status report filed by the Police.<span style="font-size: 100%;" data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"Sukhdata Chits Pvt Ltd vs Hemant Goel on 14 December, 2015\nAuthor: Sh. Parveen Kumar\n IN THE COURT OF PRAVEEN KUMAR, SPECIAL JUDGE,\n PC ACT, CBI\u00adIII, ROHINI COURTS, DELHI\n\n Sukhdata Chits Pvt Ltd. ......Petitioner\n\n Versus\n\n Hemant Goel ....Respondent\n\nRevision received on assignment on : 05.12.2015\nDate of hearing arguments : 14.12.2015\nDate of order : 14.12.2015\n\n\nORDER :\n\n1. This is a revision petition against the order dated 17/11/2015 passed by Ld. MM\u00ad03 North\u00adWest, Rohini Courts, Delhi whereby application under section 156(3) Cr. P. C. filed by the respondent/complainant was allowed and SHO of the concerned Police Station was directed to register FIR.\n2. Briefly stating, the facts relevant for the disposal of the present revision petition are that the petitioner is a chit fund company and is operated by its Directors - Sh. Prem Kumar Arya and Sh.Sukhdata Chits Pvt Ltd. v. Hemant Goel Pradeep Arya. Respondent was induced to invest his hard earned money with the petitioner company. Respondent invested his hard earned money vide Chit bearing no. PP\u00ad32 and PP\u00ad40. Respondent paid full installments for the chit no. PP\u00ad32 which matured in January 2010 but the petitioner\u00adaccused neither auctioned the chit on date fixed nor intimated the date regarding auction in future. Despite requests for release of matured amount of chit No. PP\u00ad32, the same was not released even after lapse of five\u00adsix months and the petitioner promised to pay interest on the matured chit amount which was to be adjusted in another chit bearing no. PP\u00ad40. However, nothing was released towards these chits. Respondent filed a complaint dated 8.8.2012 in the concerned Police Station but no action was taken.\n3. It is further the case of the respondent that Rs.5000/\u00ad was paid in September, 2012 and, thereafter, Rs.30,000/\u00ad was released in six installments of Rs.5000/\u00ad from November, 2012 to June, 2013, thereby leaving balance of Rs.3,15,000/\u00ad. The respondent was also threatened of dire consequences. On these allegations, a complaint under Section 200 Cr. P. C. along with an application u/s 156 (3) Cr. P. C. was made before the Ld. MM.\n4. Status report was called from the concerned Police Station. As per status report, from the averments of the complaint no offence is Sukhdata Chits Pvt Ltd. v. Hemant Goel made out.\n5. I have heard Sh. S S Mittal, Ld. Counsel for the petitioner and Sh. B B Jain, Ld. Counsel for the respondent. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner has contended that respondent has falsely stated in his complaint that no intimation was sent to the respondent regarding the auction as he has himself filed such intimation letters with his complaint u/s 200 Cr.PC. According to learned Counsel, the said complaint does not disclose any criminal offence and the same has been filed just to put pressure upon the petitioner.\n6. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for the respondent has contended that the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is barred u/s 64 (5) of the Chit Fund Act. According to him, there is no infirmity in the order passed by the trial court.\n7. I have gone through the trial court record including the status report filed by the Police.\n8. Though the respondent has claimed that he did not receive any intimation letters regarding the auction of the chit but the intimation letters are on record and were filed by him before the trial court. There is a growing tendency in business circles to convert purely civil disputes into criminal cases as civil law remedies are time consuming and do not adequately protect the interests of lenders. Time Sukhdata Chits Pvt Ltd. v. Hemant Goel and again, through several judgments, Apex Court has held that any effort to settle civil disputes, which do not involve any criminal offence, by applying pressure through criminal prosecution should be deprecated and discouraged. Though not referred to or relied upon, for taking this view I am supported with the judgments \u00ad Indian Oil Corporation Vs. NEPC India Ltd, (2006) 6 SCC 736 and G Sagar Suri Vs. State of U.P, AIR 2000 SC 754.\n7. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, I am of the opinion that there is no clear material on record to proceed against the petitioner u/s 156 (3) Cr.PC for registration of the FIR. Thus, the direction u/s 156 (3) Cr.PC is not warranted in the present case. Though not referred to or relied upon, the present case is squarely covered by the recent judgment of Apex Court reported as Ramdev Food Products Vs. State of Gujarat, AIR 2015 SC 1742.\n8. Though not referred to or relied upon, recently Apex Court has held in judgment\u00adPriyanka Sivastava Vs. State of UP, AIR 2015 SC 1758 that application u/s 156 (3) Cr.PC is to be supported by an affidavit duly sworn by applicant seeking invocation of jurisdiction u/s 156 (3) Cr.PC. A perusal of the trial court record shows that no such affidavit was filed in support of the application under Section 156 (3) Cr. P. C. As such, the application u/s 156 (3) Cr.PC is liable to be Sukhdata Chits Pvt Ltd. v. Hemant Goel dismissed on this count also.\n9. In these circumstances and for the above said reasons, the present revision petition is allowed. The impugned order passed by the trial court is set aside. The application u/s 156 (3) Cr.PC filed on behalf of the respondent is dismissed. Trial Court record be sent back with a copy of order and revision file be consigned to record room.\nAnnounced in open (Praveen Kumar) court today on 14.12.2015. Special Judge (PC Act), CBI\u00adIII, Rohini Courts, Delhi.\nSukhdata Chits Pvt Ltd. v. Hemant Goel Sukhdata Chits Pvt Ltd. v. Hemant Goel"}" data-sheets-userformat="{"2":14653,"3":{"1":0,"3":1},"5":{"1":[{"1":2,"2":0,"5":{"1":2,"2":0}},{"1":0,"2":0,"3":3},{"1":1,"2":0,"4":1}]},"6":{"1":[{"1":2,"2":0,"5":{"1":2,"2":0}},{"1":0,"2":0,"3":3},{"1":1,"2":0,"4":1}]},"7":{"1":[{"1":2,"2":0,"5":{"1":2,"2":0}},{"1":0,"2":0,"3":3},{"1":1,"2":0,"4":1}]},"8":{"1":[{"1":2,"2":0,"5":{"1":2,"2":0}},{"1":0,"2":0,"3":3},{"1":1,"2":0,"4":1}]},"11":4,"14":{"1":2,"2":0},"15":"Arial","16":10}"> 8. Though the respondent has claimed that he did not receive any intimation letters regarding the auction of the chit but the intimation letters are on record and were filed by him before the trial court. There is a growing tendency in business circles to convert purely civil disputes into criminal cases as civil law remedies are time consuming and do not adequately protect the interests of lenders. Time Sukhdata Chits Pvt Ltd. v. Hemant Goel and again, through several judgments, Apex Court has held that any effort to settle civil disputes, which do not involve any criminal offence, by applying pressure through criminal prosecution should be deprecated and discouraged. Though not referred to or relied upon, for taking this view I am supported with the judgments Indian Oil Corporation Vs. NEPC India Ltd, (2006) 6 SCC 736 and G Sagar Suri Vs. State of U.P, AIR 2000 SC 754.<span style="font-size: 100%;" data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"Sukhdata Chits Pvt Ltd vs Hemant Goel on 14 December, 2015\nAuthor: Sh. Parveen Kumar\n IN THE COURT OF PRAVEEN KUMAR, SPECIAL JUDGE,\n PC ACT, CBI\u00adIII, ROHINI COURTS, DELHI\n\n Sukhdata Chits Pvt Ltd. ......Petitioner\n\n Versus\n\n Hemant Goel ....Respondent\n\nRevision received on assignment on : 05.12.2015\nDate of hearing arguments : 14.12.2015\nDate of order : 14.12.2015\n\n\nORDER :\n\n1. This is a revision petition against the order dated 17/11/2015 passed by Ld. MM\u00ad03 North\u00adWest, Rohini Courts, Delhi whereby application under section 156(3) Cr. P. C. filed by the respondent/complainant was allowed and SHO of the concerned Police Station was directed to register FIR.\n2. Briefly stating, the facts relevant for the disposal of the present revision petition are that the petitioner is a chit fund company and is operated by its Directors - Sh. Prem Kumar Arya and Sh.Sukhdata Chits Pvt Ltd. v. Hemant Goel Pradeep Arya. Respondent was induced to invest his hard earned money with the petitioner company. Respondent invested his hard earned money vide Chit bearing no. PP\u00ad32 and PP\u00ad40. Respondent paid full installments for the chit no. PP\u00ad32 which matured in January 2010 but the petitioner\u00adaccused neither auctioned the chit on date fixed nor intimated the date regarding auction in future. Despite requests for release of matured amount of chit No. PP\u00ad32, the same was not released even after lapse of five\u00adsix months and the petitioner promised to pay interest on the matured chit amount which was to be adjusted in another chit bearing no. PP\u00ad40. However, nothing was released towards these chits. Respondent filed a complaint dated 8.8.2012 in the concerned Police Station but no action was taken.\n3. It is further the case of the respondent that Rs.5000/\u00ad was paid in September, 2012 and, thereafter, Rs.30,000/\u00ad was released in six installments of Rs.5000/\u00ad from November, 2012 to June, 2013, thereby leaving balance of Rs.3,15,000/\u00ad. The respondent was also threatened of dire consequences. On these allegations, a complaint under Section 200 Cr. P. C. along with an application u/s 156 (3) Cr. P. C. was made before the Ld. MM.\n4. Status report was called from the concerned Police Station. As per status report, from the averments of the complaint no offence is Sukhdata Chits Pvt Ltd. v. Hemant Goel made out.\n5. I have heard Sh. S S Mittal, Ld. Counsel for the petitioner and Sh. B B Jain, Ld. Counsel for the respondent. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner has contended that respondent has falsely stated in his complaint that no intimation was sent to the respondent regarding the auction as he has himself filed such intimation letters with his complaint u/s 200 Cr.PC. According to learned Counsel, the said complaint does not disclose any criminal offence and the same has been filed just to put pressure upon the petitioner.\n6. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for the respondent has contended that the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is barred u/s 64 (5) of the Chit Fund Act. According to him, there is no infirmity in the order passed by the trial court.\n7. I have gone through the trial court record including the status report filed by the Police.\n8. Though the respondent has claimed that he did not receive any intimation letters regarding the auction of the chit but the intimation letters are on record and were filed by him before the trial court. There is a growing tendency in business circles to convert purely civil disputes into criminal cases as civil law remedies are time consuming and do not adequately protect the interests of lenders. Time Sukhdata Chits Pvt Ltd. v. Hemant Goel and again, through several judgments, Apex Court has held that any effort to settle civil disputes, which do not involve any criminal offence, by applying pressure through criminal prosecution should be deprecated and discouraged. Though not referred to or relied upon, for taking this view I am supported with the judgments \u00ad Indian Oil Corporation Vs. NEPC India Ltd, (2006) 6 SCC 736 and G Sagar Suri Vs. State of U.P, AIR 2000 SC 754.\n7. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, I am of the opinion that there is no clear material on record to proceed against the petitioner u/s 156 (3) Cr.PC for registration of the FIR. Thus, the direction u/s 156 (3) Cr.PC is not warranted in the present case. Though not referred to or relied upon, the present case is squarely covered by the recent judgment of Apex Court reported as Ramdev Food Products Vs. State of Gujarat, AIR 2015 SC 1742.\n8. Though not referred to or relied upon, recently Apex Court has held in judgment\u00adPriyanka Sivastava Vs. State of UP, AIR 2015 SC 1758 that application u/s 156 (3) Cr.PC is to be supported by an affidavit duly sworn by applicant seeking invocation of jurisdiction u/s 156 (3) Cr.PC. A perusal of the trial court record shows that no such affidavit was filed in support of the application under Section 156 (3) Cr. P. C. As such, the application u/s 156 (3) Cr.PC is liable to be Sukhdata Chits Pvt Ltd. v. Hemant Goel dismissed on this count also.\n9. In these circumstances and for the above said reasons, the present revision petition is allowed. The impugned order passed by the trial court is set aside. The application u/s 156 (3) Cr.PC filed on behalf of the respondent is dismissed. Trial Court record be sent back with a copy of order and revision file be consigned to record room.\nAnnounced in open (Praveen Kumar) court today on 14.12.2015. Special Judge (PC Act), CBI\u00adIII, Rohini Courts, Delhi.\nSukhdata Chits Pvt Ltd. v. Hemant Goel Sukhdata Chits Pvt Ltd. v. Hemant Goel"}" data-sheets-userformat="{"2":14653,"3":{"1":0,"3":1},"5":{"1":[{"1":2,"2":0,"5":{"1":2,"2":0}},{"1":0,"2":0,"3":3},{"1":1,"2":0,"4":1}]},"6":{"1":[{"1":2,"2":0,"5":{"1":2,"2":0}},{"1":0,"2":0,"3":3},{"1":1,"2":0,"4":1}]},"7":{"1":[{"1":2,"2":0,"5":{"1":2,"2":0}},{"1":0,"2":0,"3":3},{"1":1,"2":0,"4":1}]},"8":{"1":[{"1":2,"2":0,"5":{"1":2,"2":0}},{"1":0,"2":0,"3":3},{"1":1,"2":0,"4":1}]},"11":4,"14":{"1":2,"2":0},"15":"Arial","16":10}"> 9. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, I am of the opinion that there is no clear material on record to proceed against the petitioner u/s 156 (3) Cr.PC for registration of the FIR. Thus, the direction u/s 156 (3) Cr.PC is not warranted in the present case. Though not referred to or relied upon, the present case is squarely covered by the recent judgment of Apex Court reported as Ramdev Food Products Vs. State of Gujarat, AIR 2015 SC 1742.<span style="font-size: 100%;" data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"Sukhdata Chits Pvt Ltd vs Hemant Goel on 14 December, 2015\nAuthor: Sh. Parveen Kumar\n IN THE COURT OF PRAVEEN KUMAR, SPECIAL JUDGE,\n PC ACT, CBI\u00adIII, ROHINI COURTS, DELHI\n\n Sukhdata Chits Pvt Ltd. ......Petitioner\n\n Versus\n\n Hemant Goel ....Respondent\n\nRevision received on assignment on : 05.12.2015\nDate of hearing arguments : 14.12.2015\nDate of order : 14.12.2015\n\n\nORDER :\n\n1. This is a revision petition against the order dated 17/11/2015 passed by Ld. MM\u00ad03 North\u00adWest, Rohini Courts, Delhi whereby application under section 156(3) Cr. P. C. filed by the respondent/complainant was allowed and SHO of the concerned Police Station was directed to register FIR.\n2. Briefly stating, the facts relevant for the disposal of the present revision petition are that the petitioner is a chit fund company and is operated by its Directors - Sh. Prem Kumar Arya and Sh.Sukhdata Chits Pvt Ltd. v. Hemant Goel Pradeep Arya. Respondent was induced to invest his hard earned money with the petitioner company. Respondent invested his hard earned money vide Chit bearing no. PP\u00ad32 and PP\u00ad40. Respondent paid full installments for the chit no. PP\u00ad32 which matured in January 2010 but the petitioner\u00adaccused neither auctioned the chit on date fixed nor intimated the date regarding auction in future. Despite requests for release of matured amount of chit No. PP\u00ad32, the same was not released even after lapse of five\u00adsix months and the petitioner promised to pay interest on the matured chit amount which was to be adjusted in another chit bearing no. PP\u00ad40. However, nothing was released towards these chits. Respondent filed a complaint dated 8.8.2012 in the concerned Police Station but no action was taken.\n3. It is further the case of the respondent that Rs.5000/\u00ad was paid in September, 2012 and, thereafter, Rs.30,000/\u00ad was released in six installments of Rs.5000/\u00ad from November, 2012 to June, 2013, thereby leaving balance of Rs.3,15,000/\u00ad. The respondent was also threatened of dire consequences. On these allegations, a complaint under Section 200 Cr. P. C. along with an application u/s 156 (3) Cr. P. C. was made before the Ld. MM.\n4. Status report was called from the concerned Police Station. As per status report, from the averments of the complaint no offence is Sukhdata Chits Pvt Ltd. v. Hemant Goel made out.\n5. I have heard Sh. S S Mittal, Ld. Counsel for the petitioner and Sh. B B Jain, Ld. Counsel for the respondent. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner has contended that respondent has falsely stated in his complaint that no intimation was sent to the respondent regarding the auction as he has himself filed such intimation letters with his complaint u/s 200 Cr.PC. According to learned Counsel, the said complaint does not disclose any criminal offence and the same has been filed just to put pressure upon the petitioner.\n6. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for the respondent has contended that the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is barred u/s 64 (5) of the Chit Fund Act. According to him, there is no infirmity in the order passed by the trial court.\n7. I have gone through the trial court record including the status report filed by the Police.\n8. Though the respondent has claimed that he did not receive any intimation letters regarding the auction of the chit but the intimation letters are on record and were filed by him before the trial court. There is a growing tendency in business circles to convert purely civil disputes into criminal cases as civil law remedies are time consuming and do not adequately protect the interests of lenders. Time Sukhdata Chits Pvt Ltd. v. Hemant Goel and again, through several judgments, Apex Court has held that any effort to settle civil disputes, which do not involve any criminal offence, by applying pressure through criminal prosecution should be deprecated and discouraged. Though not referred to or relied upon, for taking this view I am supported with the judgments \u00ad Indian Oil Corporation Vs. NEPC India Ltd, (2006) 6 SCC 736 and G Sagar Suri Vs. State of U.P, AIR 2000 SC 754.\n7. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, I am of the opinion that there is no clear material on record to proceed against the petitioner u/s 156 (3) Cr.PC for registration of the FIR. Thus, the direction u/s 156 (3) Cr.PC is not warranted in the present case. Though not referred to or relied upon, the present case is squarely covered by the recent judgment of Apex Court reported as Ramdev Food Products Vs. State of Gujarat, AIR 2015 SC 1742.\n8. Though not referred to or relied upon, recently Apex Court has held in judgment\u00adPriyanka Sivastava Vs. State of UP, AIR 2015 SC 1758 that application u/s 156 (3) Cr.PC is to be supported by an affidavit duly sworn by applicant seeking invocation of jurisdiction u/s 156 (3) Cr.PC. A perusal of the trial court record shows that no such affidavit was filed in support of the application under Section 156 (3) Cr. P. C. As such, the application u/s 156 (3) Cr.PC is liable to be Sukhdata Chits Pvt Ltd. v. Hemant Goel dismissed on this count also.\n9. In these circumstances and for the above said reasons, the present revision petition is allowed. The impugned order passed by the trial court is set aside. The application u/s 156 (3) Cr.PC filed on behalf of the respondent is dismissed. Trial Court record be sent back with a copy of order and revision file be consigned to record room.\nAnnounced in open (Praveen Kumar) court today on 14.12.2015. Special Judge (PC Act), CBI\u00adIII, Rohini Courts, Delhi.\nSukhdata Chits Pvt Ltd. v. Hemant Goel Sukhdata Chits Pvt Ltd. v. Hemant Goel"}" data-sheets-userformat="{"2":14653,"3":{"1":0,"3":1},"5":{"1":[{"1":2,"2":0,"5":{"1":2,"2":0}},{"1":0,"2":0,"3":3},{"1":1,"2":0,"4":1}]},"6":{"1":[{"1":2,"2":0,"5":{"1":2,"2":0}},{"1":0,"2":0,"3":3},{"1":1,"2":0,"4":1}]},"7":{"1":[{"1":2,"2":0,"5":{"1":2,"2":0}},{"1":0,"2":0,"3":3},{"1":1,"2":0,"4":1}]},"8":{"1":[{"1":2,"2":0,"5":{"1":2,"2":0}},{"1":0,"2":0,"3":3},{"1":1,"2":0,"4":1}]},"11":4,"14":{"1":2,"2":0},"15":"Arial","16":10}"> 10. Though not referred to or relied upon, recently Apex Court has held in judgmentPriyanka Sivastava Vs. State of UP, AIR 2015 SC 1758 that application u/s 156 (3) Cr.PC is to be supported by an affidavit duly sworn by applicant seeking invocation of jurisdiction u/s 156 (3) Cr.PC. A perusal of the trial court record shows that no such affidavit was filed in support of the application under Section 156 (3) Cr. P. C. As such, the application u/s 156 (3) Cr.PC is liable to be Sukhdata Chits Pvt Ltd. v. Hemant Goel dismissed on this count also.<span style="font-size: 100%;" data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"Sukhdata Chits Pvt Ltd vs Hemant Goel on 14 December, 2015\nAuthor: Sh. Parveen Kumar\n IN THE COURT OF PRAVEEN KUMAR, SPECIAL JUDGE,\n PC ACT, CBI\u00adIII, ROHINI COURTS, DELHI\n\n Sukhdata Chits Pvt Ltd. ......Petitioner\n\n Versus\n\n Hemant Goel ....Respondent\n\nRevision received on assignment on : 05.12.2015\nDate of hearing arguments : 14.12.2015\nDate of order : 14.12.2015\n\n\nORDER :\n\n1. This is a revision petition against the order dated 17/11/2015 passed by Ld. MM\u00ad03 North\u00adWest, Rohini Courts, Delhi whereby application under section 156(3) Cr. P. C. filed by the respondent/complainant was allowed and SHO of the concerned Police Station was directed to register FIR.\n2. Briefly stating, the facts relevant for the disposal of the present revision petition are that the petitioner is a chit fund company and is operated by its Directors - Sh. Prem Kumar Arya and Sh.Sukhdata Chits Pvt Ltd. v. Hemant Goel Pradeep Arya. Respondent was induced to invest his hard earned money with the petitioner company. Respondent invested his hard earned money vide Chit bearing no. PP\u00ad32 and PP\u00ad40. Respondent paid full installments for the chit no. PP\u00ad32 which matured in January 2010 but the petitioner\u00adaccused neither auctioned the chit on date fixed nor intimated the date regarding auction in future. Despite requests for release of matured amount of chit No. PP\u00ad32, the same was not released even after lapse of five\u00adsix months and the petitioner promised to pay interest on the matured chit amount which was to be adjusted in another chit bearing no. PP\u00ad40. However, nothing was released towards these chits. Respondent filed a complaint dated 8.8.2012 in the concerned Police Station but no action was taken.\n3. It is further the case of the respondent that Rs.5000/\u00ad was paid in September, 2012 and, thereafter, Rs.30,000/\u00ad was released in six installments of Rs.5000/\u00ad from November, 2012 to June, 2013, thereby leaving balance of Rs.3,15,000/\u00ad. The respondent was also threatened of dire consequences. On these allegations, a complaint under Section 200 Cr. P. C. along with an application u/s 156 (3) Cr. P. C. was made before the Ld. MM.\n4. Status report was called from the concerned Police Station. As per status report, from the averments of the complaint no offence is Sukhdata Chits Pvt Ltd. v. Hemant Goel made out.\n5. I have heard Sh. S S Mittal, Ld. Counsel for the petitioner and Sh. B B Jain, Ld. Counsel for the respondent. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner has contended that respondent has falsely stated in his complaint that no intimation was sent to the respondent regarding the auction as he has himself filed such intimation letters with his complaint u/s 200 Cr.PC. According to learned Counsel, the said complaint does not disclose any criminal offence and the same has been filed just to put pressure upon the petitioner.\n6. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for the respondent has contended that the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is barred u/s 64 (5) of the Chit Fund Act. According to him, there is no infirmity in the order passed by the trial court.\n7. I have gone through the trial court record including the status report filed by the Police.\n8. Though the respondent has claimed that he did not receive any intimation letters regarding the auction of the chit but the intimation letters are on record and were filed by him before the trial court. There is a growing tendency in business circles to convert purely civil disputes into criminal cases as civil law remedies are time consuming and do not adequately protect the interests of lenders. Time Sukhdata Chits Pvt Ltd. v. Hemant Goel and again, through several judgments, Apex Court has held that any effort to settle civil disputes, which do not involve any criminal offence, by applying pressure through criminal prosecution should be deprecated and discouraged. Though not referred to or relied upon, for taking this view I am supported with the judgments \u00ad Indian Oil Corporation Vs. NEPC India Ltd, (2006) 6 SCC 736 and G Sagar Suri Vs. State of U.P, AIR 2000 SC 754.\n7. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, I am of the opinion that there is no clear material on record to proceed against the petitioner u/s 156 (3) Cr.PC for registration of the FIR. Thus, the direction u/s 156 (3) Cr.PC is not warranted in the present case. Though not referred to or relied upon, the present case is squarely covered by the recent judgment of Apex Court reported as Ramdev Food Products Vs. State of Gujarat, AIR 2015 SC 1742.\n8. Though not referred to or relied upon, recently Apex Court has held in judgment\u00adPriyanka Sivastava Vs. State of UP, AIR 2015 SC 1758 that application u/s 156 (3) Cr.PC is to be supported by an affidavit duly sworn by applicant seeking invocation of jurisdiction u/s 156 (3) Cr.PC. A perusal of the trial court record shows that no such affidavit was filed in support of the application under Section 156 (3) Cr. P. C. As such, the application u/s 156 (3) Cr.PC is liable to be Sukhdata Chits Pvt Ltd. v. Hemant Goel dismissed on this count also.\n9. In these circumstances and for the above said reasons, the present revision petition is allowed. The impugned order passed by the trial court is set aside. The application u/s 156 (3) Cr.PC filed on behalf of the respondent is dismissed. Trial Court record be sent back with a copy of order and revision file be consigned to record room.\nAnnounced in open (Praveen Kumar) court today on 14.12.2015. Special Judge (PC Act), CBI\u00adIII, Rohini Courts, Delhi.\nSukhdata Chits Pvt Ltd. v. Hemant Goel Sukhdata Chits Pvt Ltd. v. Hemant Goel"}" data-sheets-userformat="{"2":14653,"3":{"1":0,"3":1},"5":{"1":[{"1":2,"2":0,"5":{"1":2,"2":0}},{"1":0,"2":0,"3":3},{"1":1,"2":0,"4":1}]},"6":{"1":[{"1":2,"2":0,"5":{"1":2,"2":0}},{"1":0,"2":0,"3":3},{"1":1,"2":0,"4":1}]},"7":{"1":[{"1":2,"2":0,"5":{"1":2,"2":0}},{"1":0,"2":0,"3":3},{"1":1,"2":0,"4":1}]},"8":{"1":[{"1":2,"2":0,"5":{"1":2,"2":0}},{"1":0,"2":0,"3":3},{"1":1,"2":0,"4":1}]},"11":4,"14":{"1":2,"2":0},"15":"Arial","16":10}"> 11. In these circumstances and for the above said reasons, the present revision petition is allowed. The impugned order passed by the trial court is set aside. The application u/s 156 (3) Cr.PC filed on behalf of the respondent is dismissed. Trial Court record be sent back with a copy of order and revision file be consigned to record room. Announced in open (Praveen Kumar) court today on 14.12.2015. Special Judge (PC Act), CBIIII, Rohini Courts, Delhi. Sukhdata Chits Pvt Ltd. v. Hemant Goel Sukhdata Chits Pvt Ltd. v. Hemant Goel

Advanced

You get opportunity to take 30 day Challenge program.

Optional

Add tags

You get opportunity to take 30 day Challenge program.

Optional

PUBLISH IT

Don't sell
PUBLISH IT
Publish privately
SAVE AS DRAFT

Dont't publish now

1. Petitioner is a chit fund company and is operated by its Directors - Sh. Prem Kumar Arya and Sh.Sukhdata Chits Pvt Ltd. v. Hemant Goel Pradeep Arya. Respondent was induced to invest his hard earned money with the petitioner company. Respondent invested his hard earned money vide Chit. Respondent paid full installments for the chit no. Chit which matured in January 2010 but the petitioneraccused neither auctioned the chit on date fixed nor intimated the date regarding auction in future. Despite requests for release of matured amount of chit, the same was not released even after lapse of five six months and the petitioner promised to pay interest on the matured chit amount which was to be adjusted in another chit. However, nothing was released towards these chits. Respondent filed a complaint dated 8.8.2012 in the concerned Police Station but no action was taken.<span style="font-size: 100%;" data-sheets-value="{" 1":2,"2":"1="" petitioner="" is="" a="" chit="" fund="" company="" and="" operated="" by="" its="" directors="" -="" sh.="" prem="" kumar="" arya="" sh.sukhdata="" chits="" pvt="" ltd.="" v.="" hemant="" goel="" pradeep="" arya.="" respondent="" was="" induced="" to="" invest="" his="" hard="" earned="" money="" with="" the="" company.="" invested="" vide="" chit.="" paid="" full="" installments="" for="" no.="" which="" matured="" in="" january="" 2010="" but="" petitioner\u00adaccused="" neither="" auctioned="" on="" date="" fixed="" nor="" intimated="" regarding="" auction="" future.="" despite="" requests="" release="" of="" amount="" chit,="" same="" not="" released="" even="" after="" lapse="" five="" \u00adsix="" months="" promised="" pay="" interest="" be="" adjusted="" another="" however,="" nothing="" towards="" these="" chits.="" filed="" complaint="" dated="" 8.8.2012="" concerned="" police="" station="" no="" action="" taken.\n2.="" it="" further="" case="" that="" rs.5000="" \u00ad="" september,="" 2012="" and,="" thereafter,="" rs.30,000="" six="" from="" november,="" june,="" 2013,="" thereby="" leaving="" balance="" rs.3,15,000="" \u00ad.="" also="" threatened="" dire="" consequences.="" \n3="" allegations,="" under="" section="" 200="" cr.="" p.="" c.="" along="" an="" application="" u="" s="" 156="" (3)="" made="" before="" ld.="" mm.="" as="" per="" status="" report,="" averments="" offence="" sukhdata="" out.\n4="" i="" am="" opinion="" there="" clear="" material="" record="" proceed="" against="" cr.pc="" registration="" fir.="" thus,="" direction="" warranted="" present="" case.\n5="" circumstances="" above="" said="" reasons,="" revision="" petition="" allowed.="" impugned="" order="" passed="" trial="" court="" set="" aside.="" behalf="" dismissed.="" sent="" back="" copy="" file="" consigned="" room."}"="" data-sheets-userformat="{" 2":14781,"3":{"1":0,"3":1},"5":{"1":[{"1":2,"2":0,"5":{"1":2,"2":0}},{"1":0,"2":0,"3":3},{"1":1,"2":0,"4":1}]},"6":{"1":[{"1":2,"2":0,"5":{"1":2,"2":0}},{"1":0,"2":0,"3":3},{"1":1,"2":0,"4":1}]},"7":{"1":[{"1":2,"2":0,"5":{"1":2,"2":0}},{"1":0,"2":0,"3":3},{"1":1,"2":0,"4":1}]},"8":{"1":[{"1":2,"2":0,"5":{"1":2,"2":0}},{"1":0,"2":0,"3":3},{"1":1,"2":0,"4":1}]},"10":0,"11":4,"14":{"1":2,"2":0},"15":"arial","16":10}"="">2. It is further the case of the respondent that Rs.5000/ was paid in September, 2012 and, thereafter, Rs.30,000/ was released in six installments of Rs.5000/ from November, 2012 to June, 2013, thereby leaving balance of Rs.3,15,000/. The respondent was also threatened of dire consequences.<span style="font-size: 100%;" data-sheets-value="{" 1":2,"2":"1="" petitioner="" is="" a="" chit="" fund="" company="" and="" operated="" by="" its="" directors="" -="" sh.="" prem="" kumar="" arya="" sh.sukhdata="" chits="" pvt="" ltd.="" v.="" hemant="" goel="" pradeep="" arya.="" respondent="" was="" induced="" to="" invest="" his="" hard="" earned="" money="" with="" the="" company.="" invested="" vide="" chit.="" paid="" full="" installments="" for="" no.="" which="" matured="" in="" january="" 2010="" but="" petitioner\u00adaccused="" neither="" auctioned="" on="" date="" fixed="" nor="" intimated="" regarding="" auction="" future.="" despite="" requests="" release="" of="" amount="" chit,="" same="" not="" released="" even="" after="" lapse="" five="" \u00adsix="" months="" promised="" pay="" interest="" be="" adjusted="" another="" however,="" nothing="" towards="" these="" chits.="" filed="" complaint="" dated="" 8.8.2012="" concerned="" police="" station="" no="" action="" taken.\n2.="" it="" further="" case="" that="" rs.5000="" \u00ad="" september,="" 2012="" and,="" thereafter,="" rs.30,000="" six="" from="" november,="" june,="" 2013,="" thereby="" leaving="" balance="" rs.3,15,000="" \u00ad.="" also="" threatened="" dire="" consequences.="" \n3="" allegations,="" under="" section="" 200="" cr.="" p.="" c.="" along="" an="" application="" u="" s="" 156="" (3)="" made="" before="" ld.="" mm.="" as="" per="" status="" report,="" averments="" offence="" sukhdata="" out.\n4="" i="" am="" opinion="" there="" clear="" material="" record="" proceed="" against="" cr.pc="" registration="" fir.="" thus,="" direction="" warranted="" present="" case.\n5="" circumstances="" above="" said="" reasons,="" revision="" petition="" allowed.="" impugned="" order="" passed="" trial="" court="" set="" aside.="" behalf="" dismissed.="" sent="" back="" copy="" file="" consigned="" room."}"="" data-sheets-userformat="{" 2":14781,"3":{"1":0,"3":1},"5":{"1":[{"1":2,"2":0,"5":{"1":2,"2":0}},{"1":0,"2":0,"3":3},{"1":1,"2":0,"4":1}]},"6":{"1":[{"1":2,"2":0,"5":{"1":2,"2":0}},{"1":0,"2":0,"3":3},{"1":1,"2":0,"4":1}]},"7":{"1":[{"1":2,"2":0,"5":{"1":2,"2":0}},{"1":0,"2":0,"3":3},{"1":1,"2":0,"4":1}]},"8":{"1":[{"1":2,"2":0,"5":{"1":2,"2":0}},{"1":0,"2":0,"3":3},{"1":1,"2":0,"4":1}]},"10":0,"11":4,"14":{"1":2,"2":0},"15":"arial","16":10}"="">3. On these allegations, a complaint under Section 200 Cr. P. C. along with an application u/s 156 (3) Cr. P. C. was made before the Ld. MM. As per status report, from the averments of the complaint no offence is Sukhdata Chits Pvt Ltd. v. Hemant Goel made out.<span style="font-size: 100%;" data-sheets-value="{" 1":2,"2":"1="" petitioner="" is="" a="" chit="" fund="" company="" and="" operated="" by="" its="" directors="" -="" sh.="" prem="" kumar="" arya="" sh.sukhdata="" chits="" pvt="" ltd.="" v.="" hemant="" goel="" pradeep="" arya.="" respondent="" was="" induced="" to="" invest="" his="" hard="" earned="" money="" with="" the="" company.="" invested="" vide="" chit.="" paid="" full="" installments="" for="" no.="" which="" matured="" in="" january="" 2010="" but="" petitioner\u00adaccused="" neither="" auctioned="" on="" date="" fixed="" nor="" intimated="" regarding="" auction="" future.="" despite="" requests="" release="" of="" amount="" chit,="" same="" not="" released="" even="" after="" lapse="" five="" \u00adsix="" months="" promised="" pay="" interest="" be="" adjusted="" another="" however,="" nothing="" towards="" these="" chits.="" filed="" complaint="" dated="" 8.8.2012="" concerned="" police="" station="" no="" action="" taken.\n2.="" it="" further="" case="" that="" rs.5000="" \u00ad="" september,="" 2012="" and,="" thereafter,="" rs.30,000="" six="" from="" november,="" june,="" 2013,="" thereby="" leaving="" balance="" rs.3,15,000="" \u00ad.="" also="" threatened="" dire="" consequences.="" \n3="" allegations,="" under="" section="" 200="" cr.="" p.="" c.="" along="" an="" application="" u="" s="" 156="" (3)="" made="" before="" ld.="" mm.="" as="" per="" status="" report,="" averments="" offence="" sukhdata="" out.\n4="" i="" am="" opinion="" there="" clear="" material="" record="" proceed="" against="" cr.pc="" registration="" fir.="" thus,="" direction="" warranted="" present="" case.\n5="" circumstances="" above="" said="" reasons,="" revision="" petition="" allowed.="" impugned="" order="" passed="" trial="" court="" set="" aside.="" behalf="" dismissed.="" sent="" back="" copy="" file="" consigned="" room."}"="" data-sheets-userformat="{" 2":14781,"3":{"1":0,"3":1},"5":{"1":[{"1":2,"2":0,"5":{"1":2,"2":0}},{"1":0,"2":0,"3":3},{"1":1,"2":0,"4":1}]},"6":{"1":[{"1":2,"2":0,"5":{"1":2,"2":0}},{"1":0,"2":0,"3":3},{"1":1,"2":0,"4":1}]},"7":{"1":[{"1":2,"2":0,"5":{"1":2,"2":0}},{"1":0,"2":0,"3":3},{"1":1,"2":0,"4":1}]},"8":{"1":[{"1":2,"2":0,"5":{"1":2,"2":0}},{"1":0,"2":0,"3":3},{"1":1,"2":0,"4":1}]},"10":0,"11":4,"14":{"1":2,"2":0},"15":"arial","16":10}"="">4. I am of the opinion that there is no clear material on record to proceed against the petitioner u/s 156 (3) Cr.PC for registration of the FIR. Thus, the direction u/s 156 (3) Cr.PC is not warranted in the present case.<span style="font-size: 100%;" data-sheets-value="{" 1":2,"2":"1="" petitioner="" is="" a="" chit="" fund="" company="" and="" operated="" by="" its="" directors="" -="" sh.="" prem="" kumar="" arya="" sh.sukhdata="" chits="" pvt="" ltd.="" v.="" hemant="" goel="" pradeep="" arya.="" respondent="" was="" induced="" to="" invest="" his="" hard="" earned="" money="" with="" the="" company.="" invested="" vide="" chit.="" paid="" full="" installments="" for="" no.="" which="" matured="" in="" january="" 2010="" but="" petitioner\u00adaccused="" neither="" auctioned="" on="" date="" fixed="" nor="" intimated="" regarding="" auction="" future.="" despite="" requests="" release="" of="" amount="" chit,="" same="" not="" released="" even="" after="" lapse="" five="" \u00adsix="" months="" promised="" pay="" interest="" be="" adjusted="" another="" however,="" nothing="" towards="" these="" chits.="" filed="" complaint="" dated="" 8.8.2012="" concerned="" police="" station="" no="" action="" taken.\n2.="" it="" further="" case="" that="" rs.5000="" \u00ad="" september,="" 2012="" and,="" thereafter,="" rs.30,000="" six="" from="" november,="" june,="" 2013,="" thereby="" leaving="" balance="" rs.3,15,000="" \u00ad.="" also="" threatened="" dire="" consequences.="" \n3="" allegations,="" under="" section="" 200="" cr.="" p.="" c.="" along="" an="" application="" u="" s="" 156="" (3)="" made="" before="" ld.="" mm.="" as="" per="" status="" report,="" averments="" offence="" sukhdata="" out.\n4="" i="" am="" opinion="" there="" clear="" material="" record="" proceed="" against="" cr.pc="" registration="" fir.="" thus,="" direction="" warranted="" present="" case.\n5="" circumstances="" above="" said="" reasons,="" revision="" petition="" allowed.="" impugned="" order="" passed="" trial="" court="" set="" aside.="" behalf="" dismissed.="" sent="" back="" copy="" file="" consigned="" room."}"="" data-sheets-userformat="{" 2":14781,"3":{"1":0,"3":1},"5":{"1":[{"1":2,"2":0,"5":{"1":2,"2":0}},{"1":0,"2":0,"3":3},{"1":1,"2":0,"4":1}]},"6":{"1":[{"1":2,"2":0,"5":{"1":2,"2":0}},{"1":0,"2":0,"3":3},{"1":1,"2":0,"4":1}]},"7":{"1":[{"1":2,"2":0,"5":{"1":2,"2":0}},{"1":0,"2":0,"3":3},{"1":1,"2":0,"4":1}]},"8":{"1":[{"1":2,"2":0,"5":{"1":2,"2":0}},{"1":0,"2":0,"3":3},{"1":1,"2":0,"4":1}]},"10":0,"11":4,"14":{"1":2,"2":0},"15":"arial","16":10}"="">5. In these circumstances and for the above said reasons, the present revision petition is allowed. The impugned order passed by the trial court is set aside. The application u/s 156 (3) Cr.PC filed on behalf of the respondent is dismissed. Trial Court record be sent back with a copy of order and revision file be consigned to record room.

Hi Thakurani,
I want to withdraw in my Thakurani wallet
Thanks,

Select the reason for validity check

I feel great..the news is still good.please give the reason too..thanks..

Why do you think the News as invalid?” Please mention the reason.

I appreciate your effort. May I request you to select one of the reasons from below.
I am marking this post and your reason to Thakurani Moderators. They will take appropriate action.
Thanks,

Write your reason

My Dear ,

Harassing

Spam

Ingenuine

Rotten

Alien

Plagiarism

Unformatted

Full News

Revision petition allowed as no material against the petitioner accused