2. Brief facts of the case are that on 04.10.2016 at about 10.30 AM, when both deceased persons were crossing the Yamuna Express Way Road in front of Super Tech Sec­96, Noida, offending vehicle bearing registration No. DL­1RT­ 6276 (Wagon R Car), being driven by respondent No. 1 in a rash and negligent manner, hit both the deceased persons due to which they suffered fatal injuries. 

3. FIR  No. 915/16 under  Section­279/304­A of Indian Penal Code was got registered at PS Sector 39, Noida, Gautam Budh Nagar, Uttar Pradesh. Police   conducted   investigation   and   on   completion   of   investigation   found respondent No. 1 accused of rash and negligent driving, hence charge­sheeted him for the commission of offence under Section 279/304­A of Indian Penal Code.

injured to the IO and same was sealed by the IO and taken into police possession. The injured got his complaint written by his uncle Mohd. Shahid and handed over the same to the IO. As per the contents of said complaint, on 16.09.2016, the injured had visited Devli village in connection with some work and was returning back to his home in the night. At about 11:00 pm, when he reached Harijan Camp Shochalaya, he found three boys namely Sachin, CCL 'S', and accused Jogender @ Yogender @ Kale standing there and said boys were known to him. The said boys stopped the injured and entangaled into a quarrel by uttering "Tu beda neta bana firta hai, dadagiri karta hai aaj tuje sabak sikha denge". Thereafter, accused Jogender @ Yogender @ Kale asked his other two associates namely accused Sachin and CCL 'S' to finish the complainant and the other two associates also said that they would kill the complainant and after saying so, accused Jogender @ Yogender @ Kale caught hold of the complainant by holding his left hand and accused Sachin caught him by right hand and their third associate JCL 'S' took out one pistol and fired at complainant. Since the complainant tried to escape after freeing himself from their clutches, he sustained injuries on his right buttock. After that, all the three boys including the present two accused fled away from the spot. Injured somehow reached his house in injured condition and police was called at 100 number and he was later taken by the PCR to AIIMS Trauma Centre.

2. In their written statement respondent no.1 and 2 have stated that the alleged   offending   vehicle   was   insured   with   respondent   no.3.     They further stated that as per the FIR, the injured himself was negligent at the time of accident.  He was overtaking the alleged offending vehicle from left side.   Hence, the respondent no.1 was not negligent.   They further stated that the respondent no.1 was having valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident.    

3. In its written statement respondent no.3 has admitted that the alleged offending vehicle was insured with it vide policy no. 77545880 for the period   from   13.09.11   to   12.09.12.     It   has   given   a   legal   offer   of Rs. 18,790/­.    

2.   I have heard the revisionist through Sh. Yogender Adari, Ld. Addl. PP   for   State   and   Sh.   Vinod   Charan,   Ld.   Counsel   for   the respondent/accused. I have perused the record of revision and of Trial Court. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the contentions put forth.

3.   Revision   petition   rests   on   the   premise   laid   by   petitioner/State through Ld. Addl. PP for the State that impugned order is erroneous as there   was   sufficient   evidence   on   record   against   acused   persons   who have   been   wrongly   discharged   totally   ignoring   previous   complaints. Also   had   been   argued   that   vide   complaint   dated   05.06.2012, complainant   alleged   that   her   husband   accused   with   his   parents   had CR No  440387/16 Page 2 of 10  demanded money from her for the rent of the house and other expenses of the house and on her showing inability to pay the same, they had demanded the same to be brought from her parents, on refusal of which the complainant was beaten by her husband and in­laws.  Also had been argued that complainant had made police call and after going back of the police, the complainant went back to her parent's house and when she came back to take her clothes back from her matrimonial home, she was   beaten   by   her   husband   and   was   threatened   to   kill.   It   has   been prayed that the impugned order be set aside and order be passed for framing charge u/s 498A  IPC against the respondent/accused.

2. It has been stated in the plaint that the defendant had taken friendly loan of Rs.15,50,000/- and at the time of taking the loan, the defendant represented that he will clear the CS No. 02/16 Page 1 of Pages 11 ADJ-01(NE)/Delhi loan in a short time and believing him, the plaintiff advanced the loan for a short time and that too without any interest.

3. It is further stated in the plaint that for repayment of the loan amount, in discharge of his debt and liability, the defendant issued seven cheques bearing No.317818 dated 05.01.2013 for Rs.2,50,000/-; 317817 dated 02.01.2013 for Rs.2,50,000/-; 317819 dated 07.01.2013 for Rs.2,50,000/-; 317820 dated 11.01.2013 for Rs.2,50,000/-; 458214 dated 24.12.2013 for Rs.2,00,000/-; 458215 dated 01.01.2013 for Rs.2,00,000/-; 458216 dated 04.01.2013 for Rs.1,50,000/-; all drawn upon Central Bank of India, Chandni Chowk, Delhi. It is further stated in the plaint that the aforesaid cheques were presented for encashment. But, the said cheques were returned back dishonoured with the remarks, "funds insufficient". Thereafter, the plaintiff called upon the defendant to pay the amount of the said cheques, vide legal notice dated 06.12.2013. But, despite service of the legal notice, the defendant has failed to pay any amount, till date and hence, the present suit.

Plaintiff's case

1. Plaintiff is a proprietor of proprietorship concern by the name and style of M/s Pearl Engineering Co. and is duly registered small scale engineering unit, involved in manufacturing of video compact discs and CS No. 10370/16 Sukesh Behl Vs. M/s V.R. Entertainers Pvt. Ltd. Page No. 1 of 13 DVDs and offering its services to renowned industrial houses and clients holding audio and video rights.

2. Defendant is a company duly incorporated under the Companies Act and is interalia involved in the business of production of feature films and movies. The defendants are the principal officer and / or person in charge of defendant company.

Plaintiff's case

1. Plaintiff is a proprietor of proprietorship concern by the name and style of M/s Pearl Engineering Co. and is duly registered small scale engineering unit, involved in manufacturing of video compact discs and CS No. 10351/16 Sukesh Behl Vs. M/s V.R. Entertainers Pvt. Ltd. Page No. 1 of 13 DVDs and offering its services to renowned industrial houses and clients holding audio and video rights.

2. Defendant is a company duly incorporated under the Companies Act and is interalia involved in the business of production of feature films and movies. The defendants are the principal officer and / or person in charge of defendant company.

2. Notice   of   the   appeal   was   issued   to   the   respondents. Trial Court Record was summoned.  I have heard Ld. Counsel for parties and perused the record.

3. In the present case,   I had directed the respondent to appear in person. Respondent no.3 Ms. Madhu Gupta appeared in person and   filed   copy   of   a   Sale   Deed   dated   30.06.1995   by   virtue   of   which respondents No. 2 & 3 became owners of the property in dispute.

4. The brief history of the present case is that Ms. Himani Gupta and Ms. Madhu Gupta had filed an eviction petition under Section 14   (1)   (b)   of   the   DRC   Act   for   seeking   eviction   of   tenant   Rajendra Mohan (respondent no.1) from premises no. 2052­2055, Katra Tobacco, Khari  Baoli, Delhi; said eviction petition was  allowed  vide  judgment dated 10.08.1999; execution petition was filed and in execution thereof the   possession   of   the   premises   was   taken   with   the   police   aid   on 01.09.2000. Thereafter, objections petition was filed on 10.10.2000.

2.   It is also alleged that during the period from 2009 to 2012,   work   orders   amounting   to   Rs.54,55,038/­   were awarded to M/s Metro Projects & Sales Services by DJB. However, during the same period original manufacturer M/s Essential Power & Transmission Pvt. Ltd. had supplied items to the tune of Rs.32,56,500/­ only to M/s Roltec Marketing Engineers, the authorised representative of the company in Delhi. 

3.   The aforesaid acts of the accused persons has caused a huge  wrongful   loss  to Govt.  exchequer   and corresponding wrongful   gain   to   the   supplier   firm   M/s   Metro   Projects   & Sales Services.

2.   It is also alleged that during the period 2009 to 2012, work orders amounting to Rs.91,18,521/­ were awarded to M/s Metro Projects   &   Sales   Services   by   DJB.   However,   during   the   same period,   original   manufacturer   M/s   Essential   Power   & Transmission   Pvt.   Ltd   had   supplied   items   to   the   tune   of Rs.32,56,500/­   only   to   M/s   Roltec   Marketing   Engineers,   the authorized representative of the company in Delhi.

3.   The aforesaid acts of accused persons has caused a huge wrongful loss to the Govt. exchequer and corresponding wrongful gain to the supplier firm M/s Metro Projects & Sales Services.

2. Succinctly the facts of the present case are that respondent no.4 had filed complaints to various authorities including SHO PS Geeta Colony and thereafter he appeared before District Magistrate (East) in a public hearing on 11.07.2017 wherein he made a complaint about   nuisance   and   air   pollution   being   caused   by   bakery manufacturing units of the petitioner and during that hearing, the DM (East) directed the concerned SDM to conduct comprehensive inspection   of   the   locality.   Thereafter,   the   complaint   of   the respondent   no.4   was   taken   into   consideration     in   which,   the respondent   no.4/complainant   stated   that   the   petitioner   is   illegally running units of manufacturing of bakery items in the ground floor and the first floor of his premises. It was stated that the petitioner has installed two High Power Ovens and other machines which are causing   nuisance   as   well   as   air   pollution   due   to   which,   it   has become difficult to breathe and to live in his house which is situated in front of the house of the petitioner.

2. Notice of the present criminal appeal was issued to the respondent/State. Trial Court Record was requisitioned.

3. I have heard both parties and scrutinised the record.

4. In order to dispose of the present matter, factual matrix of the case are that on 06.08.2012 at about 10 a.m. on the basis of statement of one Smt. Drupadi Shahi regarding her chain snatching by two persons, present FIR was registered under Sec. 356/379/34 IPC. During investigation of the case, present appellant with other boy (who was acquitted vide said impugned judgment) was found in possession of looted chain and charge under Sec. 411/34 IPC was framed against the accused to which accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

2.   Arguments have been advanced by Sh.Yatinder Pal, Ld. Counsel for appellant as also by Ms. Sapna Rani Padi, Ld. Counsel for respondent.  I have also perused the Trial Court record as well as the written submissions as filed on behalf of appellant.

3.   Ld. Counsel  for appellant argued that summons of the petition u/s. 12 of D.V Act were not served upon the appellant and even  Ld.  Trial   Court   observed  that  appellant  is   deemed  to  have been served.   It has been further submitted that even respondents no. 2 & 3, who appeared before the court informed that respondent no.1 was not residing at the given address but still Ld. Trial  Court observed that respondent no.1 is deemed to have been served.

2. Accused pleaded not guilty to the said charge and claimed trial.

3. To   bring   home   the   guilt   of   the   accused,   prosecution   has examined  six witnesses.

4. PW­1   is   WHC   Sunita.   She   was   the   duty   officer   at   PS   - Shahbad Dairy on 26.02.2015. She has deposed that on that day at about 11:55   a.m.,   the   prosecutrix   alongwith   her   mother   came   to   the   police station and got lodged the DD No.25A, which is Ex.PW1/A.

5. An   opportunity   to   cross­examination   was   given   to   ld. Defence counsel, but he did not avail of that opportunity.

6. PW­2 is Ct. Pramod. He took the rukka to the police station and got registered the FIR. He also joined the investigation with the IO. In the presence of PW­2, accused was arrested vide memo Ex.PW2/A. The   personal   search   of   the   accused   was   also   conducted   vide   memo Ex.PW2/B. Accused also made disclosure statement Ex.PW2/C in his presence   and   also   took   the   police   to   his   house,   where   IO   prepared pointing out memo of the place of incident, which is Ex.PW2/D. PW­2 has deposed that he took the accused to M.V. Hospital for his medical examination and  Potency Test.

Appellant/accused Karambiri was convicted for offence punishable   u/s.   325/452   IPC   and   was   sentenced   to   RI   for   nine months for offence u/s. 325 IPC and RI for nine months for offence u/s. 452 IPC.

Appellant/accused   Pradeep   and   Raj   Kapoor   were convicted for offences punishable u/s. 325/354/452 IPC r/w 109 IPC and were sentenced to RI for one year for the offence u/s. 325 IPC r/w 109 IPC, RI for one year for offence u/s. 354 IPC r/w 109 IPC and RI for one year for offence u/s. 452 IPC r/w 109 IPC.    Vide   impugned   order   on   sentence   dt.   27.08.2016,   Ld. Trial   Court   further   directed   that   accused/appellants   Karambiri, ______________________________________________________________ CA No. 1206/16                Page 2 of 9 Karambiri & Ors. Vs. State & Ors. Deepak & Raj Kapoor shall pay compensation of Rs.15,000/­ each and convict Pradeep shall pay compensation of Rs.50,000/­ to the complainant   and   in   default   of   payment   of   compensation   the convicts/appellants shall undergo further SI for three months.   Ld. Trial Court further observed that in view of the inadequate paying capacity   of   the   convicts,   this   Court   hereby   recommends   further compensation   to   be   awarded   by   DLSA,   SHD,   KKD,   Delhi   from Victim  Compensation  Fund.    It  is  pertinent  to  mention  here  that appellants/convicts   have   already   deposited   the   compensation amount before this court and also filed an application for grant of probation on which report of Probation Officer was also called.

2. As per the reference, a large tract of land measuring 192 bighas and 15 biswa of village Holambi Khurd, Delhi, was acquired by the Government for a public purpose namely for construction of 100 meter wide road in Narela Freight Complex (Narela), under Planned Development of Delhi. The notification under Section 4 of The LA Act as mentioned on the index page was issued. The Declaration under Section 6 was made as mentioned on the index LAC no. 501/16 Page 8 of 8 page. Thereafter, above-referred award was announced by the LAC. The LAC determined the market price of the acquired land as Rs.15.70 lacs per acre.

2.   Vide impugned  judgment, the  Magisterial trial court has  held the appellant/accused guilty of the offences under section 420 and 471 IPC. Vide impugned sentence, the Magisterial trial Court has sentenced the appellant to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two years for the offence under section 420 IPC and to pay a fine of Rs.3,000/­ and also   sentenced   the   appellant   to   undergo   simple   imprisonment   for   a period of two years for the offence under section 471 IPC and to pay a fine  of  Rs.3,000/­,  in default  of   payment of  fine,  he has  to  undergo simple imprisonment of 90 days. Both sentences are to run concurrently.

3. MAGMA General Insurance Company Ltd. 02nd Floor, BP 47 Bhadana Complex, Neelam Bata Road, Faridabad, Haryana. .... Insurer/respondent no.3 .....Respondents Suit No.3647/16          Sh. Ram Parkash Vs. Sh. Vijay & Ors.   Page No. 1/14 Date of filing of DAR : 18.12.2014 Reserved on : 14.12.2017 Date of Decision : 11.01.2018 AWARD

1. It is stated in the DAR that on 25.07.2014, deceased Anuj Kumar was going on foot from Tughlakabad, Delhi and when he reached Pul Prahlad Pur, Delhi, then suddenly a truck bearing registration no. HR-38P-2457, being driven by respondent no.1 in a rash and negligent manner hit deceased Anuj Kumar from back side. It is stated that thereafter, respondent no.1 left the offending vehicle at the spot and fled from there. PCR van was called which took deceased Anuj Kumar to Trauma Centre where he was declared brought dead.

2. In complaint case no. 6889/ 14, the respondent herein made a complaint u/s   138   of   the   Act   26   of   1881   against   the   appellant   stating   that appellant/accused   was having friendly relations since last many years with Sh. Kapoor Singh, elder brother of the complainant/respondent and being family friend, the accused is also familiar and known to him. In the   month   of   April,   2012,   the   appellant/accused   approached   the complainant   with   request   for   financial   assistance   as   the   appellant/ accused   had   to   make   payment   of   a   plot   in   Palam   as   per   certain agreement with some other person and the time period for completion of the said transactions was stated by the accused to expire by the end of April.   It is further stated that on 22.04.2012, the complainant advanced a   sum   of   Rs.   7   Lacs   to   the   accused   and   accused   borrowed   the   said Jagdish Prasad v. Rajesh Kumar Crl. Appeal No. 06/16 Page no. 2/22 amount   for   a   maximum   period   of   6   months   only.   Appellant/accused promised to return the said loan within four months along with interest @ 24% p.a.  It is further stated that the accused in order to discharge his loan liability handed over a post dated cheque bearing no. 589025 dated 23.08.2012 amounting to Rs. 7 Lacs, drawn on State Bank of Patiala, Palam Extn. Branch, New Delhi  to the complainant. It is further stated that when the appellant/accused failed to return the said amount, within the   prescribed   period   to   the   complainant   as   per   his   promise,   the respondent/complainant presented the said cheque for encashment to his banker   Oriental   Bank   of   Commerce,   Mahavir   Enclave   Branch,   New Delhi,   but   the   same   was   dishonored   vide   cheque   returning   memo   dt 04.10.2012   with   the   remark   "funds   insufficient".     Thereafter,   legal notice   dated   18.10.2012   was   sent   to   the   appellant/accused   however despite service of the notice, he failed to make the payment against the cheque within 15 days. 

2. FIR in question was registered for the offence punishable u/s 288/336/34 IPC on the complaint of revisionist who alleged that respondents no. 2 & 3 are constructing a five floor building adjoining to his house and due to which cracks have appeared in the walls of his house. Revisionist alleged that there is danger that walls of his house may fall down and his family and property are in danger due to illegal construction raised by respondents no. 2 & 3.

3. Ld Trial Court while discharging respondents no. 2 & 3 vide impugned order held that no prime facie case is made out against the respondents and dropped the proceedings against them.