SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Ashish vs State Of Haryana on 27 August, 2019

CRR-3382-2018 (OM) 1
..

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

CRR-3382-2018 (OM)
Date of Decision : August 27, 2019

Ashish …. Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana … Respondent

CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SHEKHER DHAWAN.

Present : Mr. Deepanshu Matya, Advocate
for the petitioner.

Mr. Ashok Muthreja, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana
for the respondent State.

SHEKHER DHAWAN, J.

Present revision petition is directed against the judgment of

conviction dated 20.07.2016 and order of sentence dated 21.07.2016

passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gurugram vide

which the petitioner was convicted and sentenced as under:-

Under Section Sentence In default
U/s 170 SectionIPC to undergo Rigorous To undergo further Rigorous

Imprisonment for a period of Imprisonment for a period of
two years and to pay a fine of six months.

Rs. 2.00 Lakhs.

U/s 406 SectionIPC to undergo Rigorous To undergo further Rigorous
Imprisonment for a period of Imprisonment for a period of
Seven Years and to pay a fine six months.

of Rs. 1.00 Lakh.

U/s 420 SectionIPC to undergo Rigorous To undergo further Rigorous
Imprisonment for a period of Imprisonment for a period of
Seven years and to pay a fine six months
of Rs.2.00 Lakhs.

U/s 506 SectionIPC to undergo Rigorous –
Imprisonment for a period of
two years.

1 of 9
01-09-2019 11:28:11 :::
CRR-3382-2018 (OM) 2
..

All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

2. The petitioner preferred an appeal and learned Additional

Sessions Judge, Gurugram, while acquitting the petitioner for the offences

punishable under Sections 170 and Section406 IPC, modified the judgment of

conviction and order of sentence and was convicted and sentenced the

present petitioner as under:-

Under Sentence In default
Section
U/s 420 SectionIPC to undergo Rigorous To undergo further

Imprisonment for a period of Rigorous Imprisonment for
Four years and to pay a fine a period of six months.
of Rs.1 lakh.

U/s 506 SectionIPC to     undergo     Rigorous
Imprisonment for a period of
two years.

3. Facts relevant for the purpose of decision of the present

revision petition; that on 16.08.2014, a complaint was received from the

office of Police Commissioner, Gurugram against petitioner, Ashish and his

wife, Simmi regarding cheating and criminal intimidation. Complainant,

Ashok Kumar Aggarwal was running a medical store business in the name

of 'Shri Shyam Medicos' in Sector 57, Gurugram. Simmi (wife of the

present petitioner) used to purchase medicines from him since 2011 and

whenever she used to visit the shop, she was being escorted by a gun man

and was having a vehicle with Red Beacon on the same and that process

continued for 2-3 years. She used to disclose her identity as a wife of the

Judge of this Court. On certain dates, petitioner, Ashish also used to visit

the shop and intimacy between the present petitioner and the complainant

developed.

4. In January, 2013, above named Simmi told the complainant

2 of 9
01-09-2019 11:28:11 :::
CRR-3382-2018 (OM) 3
..

that her husband had plots in various sectors of HUDA at Gurugram for

sale and believing the same to be correct, the complainant met the

petitioner through Simmi. The petitioner disclosed that he had plots of

HUDA in various sectors of Gurugram and he could get a plot allotted to

the complainant. Petitioner used to introduce him a Judge of this Court and

also showed his photographs with many senior officers. Complainant

believed the version of the accused and gave Rs.13 lakhs in cash as

advance of a plot to the petitioner in January 2013. In March 2013, when

the complainant asked the accused regarding the plot, the petitioner again

asked for additional payment of Rs.5 lakhs. Upon this, the complainant

made additional payment of Rs.5 lakhs as well. Whenever, the complainant

used to ask for the plot, the petitioner always reiterated that he would get

the plot allotted.

5. In July 2013, when the complainant asked the petitioner that

he was not in a position to purchase the plot and made a request to him to

refund the money, the present petitioner issued a cheque bearing

No.636021 dated 26.07.2013 for a sum of Rs.13 lakhs and promised to pay

balance amount of Rs.5 lakhs in September 2013. At that time, the

petitioner requested the complainant not to deposit the said cheque before

September. The said cheque was deposited in the bank on 05.09.2013, but

the same was dishonoured. Petitioner again asked the complainant to

deposit the said cheque after 25.09.2013 and for balance payment of Rs.5

lakhs, he issued another cheque bearing No.042163 dated 30.09.2013 of

ICICI Bank. Later on, both these cheques were dishonoured on account of

'Insufficient funds'. On 12.10.2013, the complainant told the petitioner that

3 of 9
01-09-2019 11:28:11 :::
CRR-3382-2018 (OM) 4
..

both the cheques were dishonoured and his money be refunded, otherwise

he would initiate legal proceedings. The petitioner asked the complainant

that he is a Judge of the High Court at Chandigarh and has connections

with police officers and high-ups also and would get him involved in false

cases and the complainant would remain in jail. As such, the complainant

did not initiate legal proceedings.

6. Later on, through the newspaper, the complainant came to

know that the petitioner was not the Judge of this Court and used to cheat

people by telling that he is a Judge and Gurugram police had initiated

proceedings against him in number of cases. Subsequently, the petitioner

was tried and convicted in number of cases of cheating.

7. The complainant lodged a complaint on the basis of which FIR

No.233 dated 16.08.2014, under Sections 406 and Section506 of IPC was

registered at Police Station 55/56, Gurugram.

8. After completion of investigation proceedings, challan was

presented before the trial Court.

9. During trial, learned trial Court completed various proceedings

of trial including framing of charge, recording statements of prosecution

witnesses and examination of the accused (petitioner herein) under Section

313 Cr.P.C. After considering the material and evidence available on

record, vide judgment dated 20.07.2016, learned trial Court held the

petitioner guilty and convicted and sentenced him under Sections 170,

Section406, Section420 and Section506 IPC vide order dated 21.07.2016. However, in appeal,

learned first appellate Court vide judgment dated 18.09.2018, acquitted

the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 170 and Section406 IPC

4 of 9
01-09-2019 11:28:11 :::
CRR-3382-2018 (OM) 5
..

and modified the judgment of conviction and order of sentence and

reduced sentence to the petitioner under Section 420 IPC from Seven

years to Four years and upheld conviction under Section 506 IPC. The

present revision petition is challenge to the said judgment dated

18.09.2018 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gurugram.

10. Learned counsel for the petitioner while arguing on the point of

innocence of the petitioner-accused and the proceedings before learned

Courts below to be illegal, mainly contended that the allegations levelled

against the present petitioner are totally false and self-contradictory. The

petitioner has already been acquitted for commission of offence punishable

under Section 406 IPC and if he has already been acquitted under Section

406 IPC and it is a case of non-entrustment of any money or property, no

offence under Section 420 IPC is made out. On this point, reliance was

placed on the judgment from Hon`ble Apex Court in Prof.

R.K.Vijayasarathy Anr. Vs. Sudha Seetharam Anr., 2019(1) JT 420

and judgment from the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Miss Bina

Pratapsinh Vissanji c/o The Wallace Mills Co. Ltd., Bombay and Ors

Vs. Sant Lal Rajinder Kumar and anr., 1991 (3) R.C.R. (Criminal) 533.

11. Learned counsel for the petitioner also contended that initially

allegations were against Simmi, wife of the petitioner, but no challan has

been presented against her.

12. Learned counsel further contended that if the entire case of

the complainant is taken to be correct at the most, it is a case under

Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act as allegedly, certain

cheques were handed over to the petitioner in some property deal matter

5 of 9
01-09-2019 11:28:11 :::
CRR-3382-2018 (OM) 6
..

and the same were dishonoured, but in any case, no offence under Section

420 or 506 SectionIPC is made about because for offence under Section 420 IPC,

the intention of the accused must be deceitful to cheat the victim from the

very beginning for gain or loss. The said basic ingredients of the offence of

cheating as defined under Section 415 IPC are completely missing in this

case. Learned Courts below have not considered this legal aspect and as

such the judgment of conviction and order of sentence recorded by learned

Courts below are liable to be set-aside.

13. While arguing on this point, learned State counsel contended

that the allegations against the petitioner are specific to the point that right

from the day one, present petitioner was impersonating himself as a Judge

of this Court and persuaded the complainant to deliver cash amounting to

Rs.13.00 lakhs initially and again a sum of Rs.5.00 Lakhs and he had no

intention to return the same or to get allotted any plot at any stage. It was

a clear cut case of cheating on the part of the petitioner and intimidating

the complainant and for that offence, learned Courts below have already

convicted and sentenced the petitioner for the offence punishable under

Sections 420 and Section506 IPC.

14. Learned State counsel also contended that the offence of

cheating under Section 420 IPC and as defined under Section 415 IPC is

quite independent and distinct from the offence under Section 406 IPC and

on that account only, learned Additional Sessions Judge vide judgment

dated 18.09.2018 had acquitted the accused for the offence punishable

under Sections 406 and Section170 IPC and convicted him for the offences

punishable under Section 420 and Section506 IPC only and the present revision

6 of 9
01-09-2019 11:28:11 :::
CRR-3382-2018 (OM) 7
..

petition be dismissed.

15. Having considered the submissions made by learned counsel

for the parties and appraisal of record, this Court is of the considered view

that the petitioner was being tried for the allegations that he had been

impersonating himself as a Judge of this Court on different dates and while

doing so, he had persuaded the complainant to hand over a sum of

Rs.13.00 Lakh for sale of the plot to the complainant which he never

intended to do. Subsequently, he received another sum of Rs. 5.00 Lakhs

on that account and again intention was clear to cheat the complainant.

Subsequent intention of the petitioner was clear because he had issued

cheque Nos.No.636021 dated 26.07.2013 for a sum of Rs.13 Lakhs and

No.042163 dated 30.09.2013 for a sum of Rs.5.00 Lakhs, knowing fully

well that he had no funds in his bank accounts and same proved to be

correct because the said cheques were dishonoured by the bank on

account of insufficiency of funds. This fact duly establishes the deceitful

intention of the petitioner right from the beginning and wrongful loss to the

complainant and wrongful gain to the present petitioner. As such, learned

Courts below have rightly convicted the petitioner for the offence

punishable under Section 420 IPC. Therefore, the judgments cited by

learned counsel for the petitioner are distinguishable from the facts of the

present case.

16. Allegations against the petitioner were also for the offence

under Section 506 IPC and the same have been proved during the trial

before learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate and the same were

affirmed by learned appellate Court in appeal as the petitioner had been

7 of 9
01-09-2019 11:28:11 :::
CRR-3382-2018 (OM) 8
..

intimidating the complainant through-out to use his connections with the

police officers and high-ups and threatened the complainant even not to

initiate the legal proceedings against him. There is no ground to interfere

in the judgment of conviction recorded by the Courts below.

17. As regards to the order of sentence, learned Additional Chief

Judicial Magistrate has observed in its order that the petitioner is a habitual

offender and was involved in a number or similar cases against him. The

details of such cases is as under :-

1. State Vs. Ashish FIR No.21/2015, under Section 506 IPC,
P.S. Bhondsi.

2. State Vs. Ashish FIR No.85/2016, under Section 42-A of
Prisoner Act, P.S. Bhondsi.

3. State Vs. Ashish FIR No.264/2014, under Sections 419, Section420,
Section506 IPC, P.S. Sector-18.

4. State Vs. Ashish FIR No.228/2014, under Sections 420, Section467,
Section468, Section471 IPC, P.S. Sector-56, Gurugram.

5. State Vs. Ashish FIR No.43/2015, under Section 420 IPC,
P.S. Sushant Lok.

6. M/s Rajra Jewellers Under Section 138 of N.I. Act, P.S. Sector-

        Vs. Ashish          56, Gurugram.
7. State Vs. Ashish FIR No.227/2014, under Sections 406 and
Section506 IPC, P.S. Sector-55/56, Gurugram.
8. State Vs. Ashish FIR No.225/2014, under Sections 406, Section420,
Section467, Section468, Section471, Section120-B IPC.
9. State Vs. Ashish FIR No.240/2014, under Sections 170, Section201,
Section406 and Section420 IPC, P.S. Sector-56, Gurugram.
10. State Vs. Ashish FIR No.245/2014, under Sections 170, Section406,
Section419 IPC, P.S. Sector 55/56, Gurugram.
11. State Vs. Ashish FIR No.247/2014, under Sections 420, Section467,
Section471, Section201 IPC, P.S. Sector-56, Gurugram.

18. There is no denial to that and the Courts below have already

taken a most lenient view on the point of sentence.

19. In view of the above, the present revision petition is without

8 of 9
01-09-2019 11:28:11 :::
CRR-3382-2018 (OM) 9
..

any merit and the same stands dismissed in the above terms.

(SHEKHER DHAWAN)
JUDGE
August 27, 2019
som

Whether speaking/reasoned? : Yes
Whether reportable? : Yes

9 of 9
::: Downloaded on - 01-09-2019 11:28:11 :::

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


Not found ...? HOW TO WIN 498a, DV, DIVORCE; Search in Above link

All Law documents and Judgment copies
Laws and Bare Acts of India
Landmark SC/HC Judgements
Rules and Regulations of India.

STUDY REPORTS

Copyright © 2021 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation
×

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation