Research › Search › Judgment

Delhi High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 2274 (DEL)

ANJU SINGH v. STATE

2006-12-07

BADAR DURREZ AHMED

body2006
BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J. ( 1 ) THIS revision petition is directed against the order on charge dated 1. 4. 2002 as well as charge framed on the same date by the learned metropolitan Magistrate. The charge framed against the petitioner reads as under:-"i, J. P. Narain, MM, Delhi, do hereby charge you Anju Singh d/o Sh. J. S. Singhal as under:-That on or before the month of December, 1999, you along with Smt. Meena and Smt. Renu both proclaimed offenders entered into an agreement to cheat the complainant Smt. Sudha Wadwani by making highest bid of the chits and taking the money and thereafter not making the payment of the chits and thus you committed offence punishabale u/s 120-B IPC and within my cognizance. Secondly on or before the month of December 1999 at Delhi you had opened the different chits in different groups in the name of Yuvraj, Anwaj, Sarvesh, ramesh, Shishir, Shantu and you made the highest bids and chit funds were given to you and you took the money after giving the assurance that you will make the payment of the monthly installments and although you had no intention to make the payment and after the month of December 1999 a sum of Rs 12,90,000/- was due towards you and thus you cheated the complainant to the tune of Rs 12,90,000/-and thus you committed offence punishable u/s 420 IPC and within my cognizance. " ( 2 ) THE order on charge is one Page order and it would be of benefit if the same is set out in toto:-"i have gone through the rival submissions and have gone through the written submissions filed on behalf of accused Anju Singh. No doubt the submissions of the Ld. Counsel shows that complainant has violated section 3,4, 7 of Madras chit Funds Act but still the material on the record disclose prima facie accused committed offence u/s 120-B IPC and 420 IPC. After going through the rival submissions and material on the record prima facie case is made out for framing charge against the accused for offence u/s 120-B and 420 IPC and accordingly charge framed, accused pleaded not guilty. To come for PE for 6-8-2002. "3. After going through the rival submissions and material on the record prima facie case is made out for framing charge against the accused for offence u/s 120-B and 420 IPC and accordingly charge framed, accused pleaded not guilty. To come for PE for 6-8-2002. "3. The main contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner was that the learned Metropolitan Magistrate having held that the complainant herself had violated Sections 3, 4 and 7 of the Madras Chit Fund act, 1961 ought not to have arrived at the conclusion that there was material on record to disclose prima facie, that the petitioner committed an offence under sections 120b and 420 IPC. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the complainant herself, being guilty of an illegal act, could not complain of another illegal act said to have been committed as part of the same illegal transaction conducted by the complainant. ( 3 ) THE learned counsel for the State submitted that if there was an argument to commit an illegality as was being sought to be made out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, then there would have been no difficulty in saying that the charges ought not to have been framed. However, he submitted that the chit that was being run by the complainant, was not an illegal one and did not fall within the definition of chit, as appearing in Section 2 (2)1 of the said Act. He submitted that the transactions that were being carried out by the complainant were in the nature of the transaction described in Explanation (b)to Section 2 (a) of the said Act. That being the case, the same did not fall within the definition of chit and, therefore, was not covered by the said Act. Clearly, according to the learned counsel for the State, the complainant was not indulging in any illegal activity. ( 4 ) THERE is great deal of controversy as to the exact nature of the transactions that were being carried out by the complainant. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the transaction that was being carried out by the complainant was entirely different from one that has been set out in explanation (b) to Section 2 (2) of the said Act. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the transaction that was being carried out by the complainant was entirely different from one that has been set out in explanation (b) to Section 2 (2) of the said Act. He submitted that in the present case, it is not a question of disbursing the total amount by draw of lots as in the case of a conventional chit but, of awarding prize money on the basis of bids which is entirely different to the transaction set out in the said explanation (b ). The learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, submitted that there are statements of the witnesses to indicate that the transaction which would not fall within the definition of "chit" under Section 2 (2) of the said Act. ( 5 ) I find that these aspects have not been considered at all by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate. The facts need to be examined based on the material on record to ascertain, prima facie, the nature of the transaction. It goes without saying that if the transactions conducted by the complainant were itself violative of the said Act, the question of framing of charges under section 120b and 420 IPC would not arise. ( 6 ) IN these circumstances, this matter is remanded to the learned metropolitan Magistrate for a fresh consideration. The impugned order is set aside. The matter shall now be placed before the learned Metropolitan magistrate for arguments on charge afresh. This petition is disposed of.