W.P. (Crl.) No.1147/2011 Page 1 of 5 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(CRL) 1147/2011 % Decided on: 18th August, 2011 GOURAV SHARMA ..... Petitioner Through: Ms. Geeta Luthra, Sr. Adv. with Ms. Chandrani Prasad, Mr. Virender Tarun, Advs. versus RESIDENT COMMISSIONER GOVT. OF BIHAR & ORS. .... Respondents Through: Mr. Dayan Krishnan, ASC for State. Coram: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA 1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may Not Necessary be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to Reporter or not? Yes 3. Whether the judgment should be reported Yes in the Digest? MUKTA GUPTA, J. (Oral) Crl. M.A. 9702/2011 Exemption allowed subject to just exception. W.P.(CRL) 1147/2011 & Crl.M.A. 9701/2011 (stay) 1. By this petition the Petitioner seeks quashing of FIR No. 236/2011 under Section 406/419/420 IPC registered at P.S. Kotwali, Sub-Division Sadar, District Munger, Bihar on the complaint of one Ajay Kumar Modi. W.P. (Crl.) No.1147/2011 Page 2 of 5 2. At the outset learned Additional Standing Counsel for the Respondent No.3 Govt. of NCT of Delhi raises a preliminary objection as to the maintainability of the present petition before this Court. Reliance is placed on Navinchandra N. Majithia Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors. (200) 7 SCC 640 and Asit Bhattacharjee Vs. Hanuman Prasad Ojha and Ors. (2007) 5 SCC 786 to contend that only a Court where essential part of cause of action arises would have the jurisdiction to entertain a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. Since even as per the FIR no part of cause of action arose at Delhi, this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the present petition. 3. Briefly the contentions on behalf of the Petitioner are that one FIR was lodged by one Satender Singh against the Petitioner on 10th April, 2009 resulting in the arrest of the Petitioner. The Petitioner remained in custody for nearly 40 days. The Petitioner’s case is that thereafter to further wreak vengeance two more FIRs were registered against him, one being the abovementioned and the other being FIR No. 237/2011 at the same Police Station on the complaint of one Brij Mohan Sultania. It is contended that the said Brij Mohan Sultania had earlier filed a complaint before the Economic Offences Wing of the Delhi Police, however after an enquiry the said complaint was closed. W.P. (Crl.) No.1147/2011 Page 3 of 5 4. To counter the contention of maintainability of the present petition learned counsel for the Petitioner states that since some part of cause of action arose at Delhi as the demand of return of money was made at Delhi this Court has jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to quash the abovementioned FIR. Reliance in this regard is placed on Alchemist Ltd. and Anr. Vs. State Bank of Sikkim and Ors. 2011 (122) DRJ 693(SC) and a full bench decision of this Court in Sterling Agro Ltd. Vs. Union of India and Ors. MANU/DE/2838/2011. 5. Thus the issues that arises for consideration are whether on the facts of the case does any part or essential part of cause of action arises at Delhi clothing this Court with jurisdiction to entertain the Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. For this it would be relevant to note the allegations as set out in the FIR which states. “To, The SHO Police Station: Munger Sir, This is to request you that I Ajay Kumar Modi s/o Late Krishan Kumar Modi is a resident of Mohalla Shravan Bazaar P.S. Kotwali District Munger. I run a shop by the name M/s. Saree Sansaar firm. On 27.12.09 around 2’o clock in the afternoon Mr. Gaurav Sharma s/o Suresh Sharma r/o M/134/9 Shastri Nagar and shop address 146/9, Ground Floor, Shastri Nagar, Police Station Sarai Rohilla District North Delhi came at my W.P. (Crl.) No.1147/2011 Page 4 of 5 shop and said that I have a business of silk saree. In Delhi my firm name is Balaji Packers and I also send goods to many shops in Munger. I trusted him and gave the order for sarees and suit cloth worth Two Lakh Rupees and gave One Lakh Rupees in advance after taking money from my friends. After giving order and advance and not receiving goods from their side I called up their mobile phone. Their mobile phone was switched off. I even went to their house in Delhi but could not meet him instead I met Shri Suresh Sharma who said that the goods are not coming from China and when they will come they will be delivered to you but even then the goods didn’t arrived so I again went to Delhi and found that they no longer stay at the same address. I has been brought in notice that earlier also a case is registered against the accused, about Gaurav Sharma I came to know that he has fraudulently duped many businessmen and duping is the business they do. The way they duped others the same way they also duped me of Rs. One Lakh with a thought out planned move in the name of sending the goods to me and this is clear that this is the business that they do. Hence, I request you Sir to please take appropriate legal action against the aforesaid persons. I would be highly obliged. Yours faithfully Sd/- Ajay Kumar Modi 25.06.2011” 6. A perusal of the FIR shows that the only act which took place in Delhi was that the complainant came to meet the Petitioner at Delhi but he could not meet him and instead met his father Shri Suresh Sharma who informed him that the goods were not coming from China and when they will come they will be delivered to him. Further thereafter when the complainant again came W.P. (Crl.) No.1147/2011 Page 5 of 5 to Delhi he found the Petitioner was not staying at the same address. The allegations against Petitioner Gaurav Sharma are of cheating the complainant and causing criminal breach of trust. The only act alleged at Delhi is that when the complainant came to Delhi he made a demand to the father of the Petitioner. Admittedly, he did not meet the Petitioner, thus no demand was made to the Petitioner. Demand if any was made to his father a third party which cannot be stated to be a demand made to the Petitioner. The Petitioner and the complainant met at Munger when the Petitioner went there. The order for sarees and suit clothes and the advance payment was given at Munger to the Petitioner. No demand of the return of the money or delivery of articles was made to the Petitioner at Delhi. Thus a perusal of the complaint shows that no cause of action arose in Delhi. 7. In view of the fact that no part of cause of action arose in Delhi much less any essential part of cause of action, this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain present petition for quashing of the abovementioned FIR. The petition and application are dismissed. (MUKTA GUPTA) JUDGE AUGUST 18, 2011 ‘ga’