Delhi High Court – Orders
Manoj Jain vs State (Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi) on 14 July, 2025
$~39
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.M.C. 1931/2020 & CRL.M.A. 13790/2020,
CRL.M.A. 13791/2020
MANOJ JAIN .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Praveen Chaturvedi,
Ms. Jyoti Chaturvedi, Mr.
Tarun Kumar and Mr.
Kaushik Mukherjee, Advs.
versus
STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI) .....Respondent
Through: Ms. Kiran Bairwa, APP
for the State with SI Om
Prakash, PS M.S. Park and
SI Yogesh Kumar, PS
Defence Colony.
Mr. Chirag Khurana, Adv.
for R-2 / complainant.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN
ORDER
% 14.07.2025
1. The present petition is filed challenging the order dated
04.09.2020 (hereafter ‘impugned order’), passed by the learned
Additional Sessions Judge (‘ASJ’), Shahdara District,
Karkardooma Courts, Delhi, in Criminal Revision No. 76/2019.
2. By the impugned order, the learned ASJ partly allowed the
revision petition filed by Respondent No.2 against order dated
25.09.2019, in the case arising out of FIR No. 48/2018 (‘FIR’),
registered at Police Station Mansarovar Park, whereby the protest
petition filed by Respondent No.2 against placing of the
petitioner and another accused-Neelam in column 12 of the
charge sheet was dismissed. The learned ASJ observed that
CRL.M.C. 1931/2020 Page 1 of 10
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 18/07/2025 at 22:31:41
sufficient evidence is available on record to summon the
petitioner for the offence under Sections 420/120B of the Indian
Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC‘).
3. The brief facts of the case are as follows:
3.1 On 19.02.2018, FIR was registered on a complaint made
by Respondent No.2/ complainant company alleging that accused
Deepak Aggarwal had approached Mr. Mukesh Bhargava (the
Chairman of the complainant company) through the petitioner,
who was a common acquaintance. It is alleged that the petitioner
had introduced the accused Deepal as a timber merchant who
wanted to sell his timber property. It was represented that the
accused was the rightful owner of the subject property,
whereafter, the complainant company bought the subject property
for a sum of ₹1.1 crore on 05.07.2016 by way of a registered sale
deed. It is alleged that pursuant to the sale, the accused Deepak
entered into a rent agreement dated 11.07.2016, whereby he took
the subject property on rent for a sum of ₹2.2 lakhs per month,
and he requested for time to pay the rent due to his financial
constraints. The accused Deepak also gave cheques for rent for
some months. It is alleged that the complainant company later
found out that the accused Deepak and his wife-Neelam had
mortgaged the subject property with DMI Housing Finance Pvt.
Ltd. and DMI Finance Pvt. Ltd. in the year 2015. It was found
that certain loan agreements and ancillary agreements had been
executed against the subject property on 22.01.2015 by way of
which the accused Deepak and his wife had availed a loan of
₹237.42 lakhs and ₹25 lakhs respectively. It is further alleged
that DMI Financial had taken possession of the subject property.
It is the case of the complainant company that it has suffered a
loss of 1.44 crores on account of the fraud by the accused
CRL.M.C. 1931/2020 Page 2 of 10
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 18/07/2025 at 22:31:41
persons, wherein the non-handing over of possession, non-
payment of rent and absconding of the accused Deepak shows the
intent to cheat the complainant from the very inception.
3.2 After investigation, the accused Deepak was charge
sheeted for the offence under Section 420 of the IPC and the
petitioner was kept in column no. 12 along with the wife of the
accused Deepak. Pursuant to the same, Protest petition was filed
by the complainant company for summoning of the accused
persons kept in column no. 12. It was pleaded that the petitioner
had introduced the accused Deepak to the complainant and his
role is clearly described in the statement of the complainant and
other witnesses. It was also pleaded that the petitioner has other
criminal involvements of similar nature which shows his
propensity to commit such crimes.
3.3 By order dated 25.09.2019, the learned Trial Court
dismissed the protest petition filed by the complainant. In relation
to the petitioner, it was noted that the mere fact that the petitioner
had introduced the accused Deepak to the complainant does not
prima facie show any mala fide intention on his part. It was
further noted that there is nothing on record to show that the
petitioner had any knowledge with respect to the subject property
being mortgaged. It was also noted that merely because the
petitioner was involved in other cases, the same was insufficient
to show his complicity with the accused Deepak as well.
3.4 By the impugned order, the learned ASJ observed that it
appears that the statements of the witnesses recorded under
Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (‘CrPC‘)
had not been brought to the notice of the learned Trial Court at
the time of arguments on the protest petition. It was held that
there was sufficient material to summon the petitioner for the
CRL.M.C. 1931/2020 Page 3 of 10
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 18/07/2025 at 22:31:41
offence under Section 420 of the IPC. The learned ASJ took into
consideration the statements of Mr. Mukesh Bhargava as well as
the statement of Mr. Ashok Anand, who was an employee of
DMI Housing Finance and had stated that the petitioner had
accompanied the accused Deepak at DMI office.
3.5 Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has preferred the
present petition.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
impugned order is bad in law and the learned ASJ has failed to
consider that there is no allegation against the petitioner in
relation to him being the beneficiary to the transaction, a witness
to the Sale Deed or a mediator for the transaction.
5. He submits that the petitioner and Mr. Mukesh Bhargava
have long standing business relations and the petitioner had also
invested in another firm under the proprietorship of Mr. Mukesh
Bhargava. He further submits that no role has been attributed on
the petitioner in the FIR apart from introducing the complainant
to the accused Deepak and the complainant only started pressing
the case against the petitioner after the petitioner demanded
refund of the amount loaned by him.
6. He submits that there is no material that crystallises the
allegations of cheating or conspiracy against the petitioner. He
further submits that it is improbable that Mr. Ashok recalls the
face of the petitioner, who had allegedly accompanied the
accused Deepak. He submits that it is rightly found in the
investigation that there is no evidence to proceed against the
petitioner.
7. Per contra, the learned counsel for Respondent No.2
submits that the protest petition was dismissed by the learned
Trial Court after observing that there was no material to show
CRL.M.C. 1931/2020 Page 4 of 10
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 18/07/2025 at 22:31:41
that the petitioner had any knowledge about the mortgaging of
the subject property, however, the said observation is clearly
belied by the statements of Mr. Ashok Anand, an employee of
DMI House Finance, who has stated that the petitioner
accompanied the accused Deepak to the office. He submits that
the learned ASJ has also rightly noted that the statement of Mr.
Mukesh Bhargava also depicts that the petitioner was
instrumental in introducing the accused Deepak and he was also
present at the time of registration.
8. He stresses that the veracity of the statements of the
witnesses will be seen during the course of the trial and a mini
trial cannot be conducted at this stage.
9. I have heard the counsel and perused the record.
10. At the outset, it is relevant to note that the petitioner has
invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court. It is settled law
that this Court ought to exercise its inherent jurisdiction
sparingly, especially when the Sessions Court has already
exercised revisional jurisdiction. However, the present case is not
one where there are concurrent findings by the Sessions Court
and Magistrate. In this case, the learned Trial Court dismissed the
protest petition filed by the complainant company seeking
issuance of summons to the petitioner and the wife of main
accused Deepak, namely, Neelam. Subsequently, the learned ASJ
found that sufficient material was on record for summoning the
petitioner. The same warrants a scrupulous appraisal of the facts
of the case to ascertain whether interference is required to secure
the ends of justice.
11. Issuance of summons is a serious issue and the same
cannot be issued in a routine manner. In the case of Pepsi Foods
Ltd. and Another v. Special Judicial Magistrate and Others :
CRL.M.C. 1931/2020 Page 5 of 10
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 18/07/2025 at 22:31:41
(1998) 5 SCC 749, the Hon’ble Apex Court had observed as
under:
“28. Summoning of an accused in a criminal case is a
serious matter. Criminal law cannot be set into motion as a
matter of course. It is not that the complainant has to bring
only two witnesses to support his allegations in the complaint
to have the criminal law set into motion. The order of the
Magistrate summoning the accused must reflect that he has
applied his mind to the facts of the case and the law
applicable thereto. He has to examine the nature of
allegations made in the complaint and the evidence both
oral and documentary in support thereof and would that be
sufficient for the complainant to succeed in bringing
charge home to the accused. It is not that the Magistrate is
a silent spectator at the time of recording of preliminary
evidence before summoning of the accused. The Magistrate
has to carefully scrutinise the evidence brought on record
and may even himself put questions to the complainant and
his witnesses to elicit answers to find out the truthfulness of
the allegations or otherwise and then examine if any offence
is prima facie committed by all or any of the accused.
29. No doubt the Magistrate can discharge the accused at
any stage of the trial if he considers the charge to be
groundless, but that does not mean that the accused cannot
approach the High Court under Section 482 of the Code or
Article 227 of the Constitution to have the proceeding
quashed against him when the complaint does not make out
any case against him and still he must undergo the agony of
a criminal trial….”
(emphasis supplied)
12. Much emphasis has been laid by the learned counsel for
Respondent No.2 upon the statements tendered by Mr. Mukesh
Bhargava as well as Mr. Ashok Anand. The learned ASJ was also
weighed by the aforesaid statements and observed that while it is
difficult to find direct evidence against accused persons for the
offence of conspiracy, however, the circumstances borne out
from the statements of the witnesses indicate that the petitioner
was part of the conspiracy to cheat Respondent No.2. The
relevant portion of the impugned order is as under:
“11. Perusal of challan further reveals that on 07.12.2018,
statement of Mukesh Bhargava was recorded under Section
161 Cr.P.C. In his statement, he has inter-alia stated that in
CRL.M.C. 1931/2020 Page 6 of 10This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 18/07/2025 at 22:31:41
January, 2016, Manoj Jain came to him and told that due to
financial need, Deepak Aggarwal wished to sell his shop.
Then, Manoj Jain showed the impugned property in the
month of May-June, 2016. At that time, Deepak Aggarwal
was present at the shop and he stated that he would hand
over the shop to him. When he (Mukesh Bhargava) and
Manoj Jain were returning in the car, he asked that he
wished to see the property documents, then Manoj Jain stated
that the title deeds had been kept in the locker of wife of the
accused Deepak Aggarwal. Thereafter, he (Mukesh
Bhargava) made payment of the consideration amount to
Deepak Aggarwal. On the date of registration of the sale
deed, Deepak Aggarwal and Manoj Jain brought certified
copy of the registry instead of bringing original documents.
They stated that Deepak Aggarwal could not find time to get
the original documents from locker of his wife. Thereafter, he
came to know that the impugned property had been
mortgaged with DMI in the year 2015. He called Manoj Jain
to him and asked to accompany him to visit DMI office. When
he alongwith Manoj Jain visited DMI office and met with
Legal Head, Ms. Priyanka Middha and Anand Prakash, they
immediately recognized him and stated that he (Manoj Jain)
earlier used to come with Deepak Aggarwal. On this, the face
of Manoj Jain turned pale. In his statement itself, Mukesh
Bhargava has alleged that Deepak Aggarwal, Neelam
Aggarwal and Manoj Jain had conspired with intention to
cheat him and sold him the impugned property, which had
already been mortgaged.
12. Further, statement of Ashok Anand, employee of legal
department of DMI was also recorded on 14.12.2018. He has
also stated on the similar lines as stated by Mukesh
Bhargava that he (Ashok Anand) identified Manoj Jain, who
used to accompany Deepak Aggarwal and Neelam Aggarwal
at DMI office. He has further stated that Manoj Jain knew
that property was mortgaged with DMI.
xxx
14. It is clear from the abovesaid legal position that for
the offence of conspiracy, it is very difficult to find direct
evidence against the accused persons and usually, it can be
inferred from the circumstances only. The statement of
Mukesh Bhargava, Director of the complainant company,
recorded on 07.12.2018, clearly depicts that Manoj Jain had
been instrumental in introducing Deepak Aggarwal to
Mukesh Bhargava for sale of the impugned property to the
complainant company. He had also represented Deepak
Aggarwal by saying that the property documents were kept in
the locker of wife of Deepak Aggarwal. He was also present
at the time of registration of the sale deed. If he had no
concern with Deepak Aggarwal after having introduced him
to Mukesh Bhargava, then why he had been visiting DMI
office accompanying Deepak Aggarwal. All these
CRL.M.C. 1931/2020 Page 7 of 10This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 18/07/2025 at 22:31:41
circumstances, prima facie, lead to infer that Deepak
Aggarwal and Manoj Jain had conspired to cheat Mukesh
Bhargava and pursuant to the said conspiracy, the sale deed
was executed on 05.07.2016 in favour of the complainant
company. This Court has restrained itself from detailed
analysis of the facts and circumstances as it may prejudice
the case of accused persons during trial.”
13. The chargesheet clearly indicates that the petitioner was
not charge sheeted as no evidence came forth which evidenced
that the petitioner had knowledge of the subject property being
mortgaged. It is mentioned in the chargesheet that while Mr.
Ashok Anand had stated that the petitioner had accompanied the
accused Deepak at the DMI office, however, no date or time of
the same was mentioned. As mentioned in the charge sheet, the
learned ASJ has failed to appreciate that the accused Deepak had
only approached the office of Mr. Ashok Anand after he
defaulted in payments of instalments, that is, after July-August-
2016. It is also mentioned in the chargesheet that by that time, the
accused Deepak had already transferred the subject property to
the complainant. Although it is argued that the veracity of the
statements can only be tested in trial, however, even if the
statement of the said witness is taken at the highest, the same
does not reflect that the petitioner had knowledge of the
mortgaging of the property prior to the parties executing the sale
deed in relation to the same. The said witness is merely an
employee who came into contact with the accused Deepak after
registration of the sale deed and his deposition for the purpose of
proving that the petitioner had prior knowledge of the subject
property being mortgaged or for proving the alleged conspiracy
between the parties will be irrelevant. In the absence of any
corroborative evidence, mere speculation on part of the said
witness is not sufficient to set criminal law in motion against
CRL.M.C. 1931/2020 Page 8 of 10
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 18/07/2025 at 22:31:41
Respondent No.2.
14. As also noted in the chargesheet, no documents executed
at the DMI office bore the signature of the petitioner and there
was no material to show that he had brokered the transaction
either. The petitioner did not sign as a witness to the sale deed
either.
15. It is only Mr. Mukesh Bhargava who claimed in his
statement that the petitioner had brokered the transaction. It is
only in his statement under Section 161 of the CrPC that the said
witness stated that the petitioner was part of the conspiracy and
his face had turned “pale” when the DMI officers recognised
him. The said witness has further supplemented his earlier stance
by stating that the petitioner was involved in the transaction and
even present at the time of execution of the sale deed.
Undisputably, the FIR was registered in February, 2018, way
after the petitioner had visited the DMI office with Mr. Mukesh
Bhargava. Even so, it is pertinent to note that no such allegation
was made in the FIR against the petitioner. Moreover, in the FIR,
the complainant has specifically mentioned that the complaint is
against the accused Deepak and his wife, who have connived to
cheat the complainant.
16. Even otherwise, it is relevant to note that for summons to
be issued against the petitioner, the Court was required to see
whether a prima facie case was made out against the petitioner
and if the material on record establishes sufficient grounds to
proceed against him. Concededly, the petitioner is not the owner
of the subject property. As discussed above, at this stage, there is
no cogent material to show that the petitioner was aware of the
subject property being mortgaged or which shows his
involvement in the sale transaction apart from introducing the
CRL.M.C. 1931/2020 Page 9 of 10
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 18/07/2025 at 22:31:41
accused Deepak to Mr. Mukesh either. It is also relevant to note
that the petitioner does not appear to be the beneficiary to the
offence. The bald allegations against the petitioner, at this stage,
are not corroborated by any independent material and the same
are insufficient for summoning the petitioner for the offences
under Sections 420/120B of the IPC.
17. In view of the aforesaid discussion, in the opinion of this
Court, the learned ASJ erred in observing that sufficient evidence
is available for on record to summon the petitioner for the
offences under Sections 420/120B of the IPC. The impugned
order is set aside to the extent of the observations made in
reference to the petitioner.
18. The present petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms.
Pending applications also stand disposed of.
AMIT MAHAJAN, J
JULY 14, 2025
CRL.M.C. 1931/2020 Page 10 of 10
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 18/07/2025 at 22:31:41
[ad_1]
Source link