CASE ANALYSIS: VIPUL JAIN V STATE OF NCT DELHI, 2024

Spread the love

Post Views: 53

Citation – 2024 SCC OnLine Del 206

Date- 11 January,2024

Court Name – Delhi High Court

Plaintiff/Appellant/ Petitioner – VIPUL JAIN

Defendant/ Respondent- STATE THROUGH GOVT OF (NCT) OF DELHI & ANR.

Judges- HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA

FACTS OF THE CASE

A person called Yogesh Sharma filed a complaint, which led to the filing of a formal complaint. He had purchased a Maruti Suzuki Eeco vehicle with a loan from Kogta Finance Bank.
He had only made four of the twenty-four monthly installments that were required to be paid back on the loan. He said that because the loan business was not providing him with appropriate receipts for the payments he had made, he ceased making more installment payments.
According to Yogesh, three unidentified individuals from the financing firm, accompanied by a man and a female police officer, arrived to his residence at 11:30 AM on September 11, 2023.
The gang began to argue with him and attempted to seize his car keys by force. They lacked a court order when requested to provide legal authorization to remove the automobile.
After Yogesh informed the SHO and the ACP about the incident, they suggested that he document the events. It was then discovered that the individuals had presented a falsified document, saying it was an arbitrator’s order granting them permission to seize the automobile. It turns out the paper was a total hoax.

ISSUES OF THE CASE

Is Vipul Jain, the petitioner, eligible for anticipatory release under Section 438 CrPC in spite of the claims that he produced a fake arbitration ruling in order to illegally retrieve the car?
Is there enough evidence in the record to demonstrate that the petitioner created or manufactured the false arbitral order?
Does the legal viability of the FIR against the petitioner change if the Finance Company and the police officers who allegedly helped with the recovery without a court order are not prosecuted?
Does the fact that the plaintiff did not really suffer any losses as a result of the fabricated document make Section 467 IPC—forgery of valuable security or will—no longer applicable?
Is it possible to ascertain if paid workers are liable for crimes at the anticipatory bail stage, particularly in cases when the beneficiary firm is not named as an accused party?
Is it appropriate to take into account, at this point in the inquiry, the purported delay in obtaining the CCTV footage that the petitioner uses as support?

JUDGEMENT

Under Section 438 of the CrPC, the petitioner, Vipul Jain, requested anticipatory bail.
In accordance with Sections 420 (cheating), 467 (forgery of valuable security), 468 (forgery for the purpose of cheating), 471 (using a forged document), 506 (criminal intimidation), and 34 (common intention) of the IPC, FIR No. 0433/2023 was filed.
After Yogesh Sharma, the complainant, failed to make four installments on a car loan from Kogta Finance Bank, the petitioner and other finance firm employees allegedly tried to evict him using a fake arbitration ruling.
Later, it was found that the paperwork produced to support possession was fake and fraudulent.
The petitioner stated that he did not bring any falsified documents to the police station and that he never went there to ask for assistance with car repossession.
He maintained that there was no evidence against him and that the recovery team’s accompanying police officers were at fault.
The court relied on various judgments: Selective prosecution should not be permitted, according to the argument made in Preeti Chandra v. Directorate of Enforcement.
In Maksud Saiyed v. State of Gujarat, it was contended that the lawsuit lacked substance since the finance firm was not named as an accused party.
According to the ruling in Dr. Vimla v. Delhi Administration, Section 467 IPC is not applicable because there was no actual loss.
Additionally, he said that since temporary release was granted on December 20, 2023, he has cooperated with the inquiry and is a paid employee.
In opposition to bail, the Additional Public Prosecutor, or APP, asserted that the petitioner:
Was the one who filed the fraudulent arbitration ruling.
His involvement is confirmed by his entry in GD (General Diary) No. 51A dated 11.09.2023.
Gave the police a copy of the purported order along with his identification.
Knew there wouldn’t be any CCTV evidence to confirm their presence afterward.
The arbitration order’s falsity was demonstrated by:
The advocate’s statement, which was misrepresented as the arbitrator.
Kogta Finance Bank said that there had never been any arbitration procedures started.
The Court stressed that, notwithstanding the complainant’s loan default, repossession must be carried out legally and that faking an arbitrator’s ruling is a severe criminal offense that needs careful examination.
Custodial questioning and witness confrontation are required to ascertain the petitioner’s attendance and involvement in the occurrence due to the grave accusations that he delivered the fake paper.
Granting the petitioner anticipatory bail is not justified by the fact that no action has been taken against the police officers; if evidence is discovered during the inquiry, action may still be taken against them.
The Court decided that the petitioner’s stated precedents did not apply at the anticipatory bail stage since the Dr. Vimla case’s “no loss” argument only applies during trial and not during inquiry, and the Preeti Chandra case dealt with selective prosecution.
Additionally, it determined that the Maksud Saiyed case was completely distinct from the current case involving the fabrication of an arbitration order because it included a public problem by a bank and had no factual similarities.
The Court decided that, at this point in the inquiry, anticipatory bail was not appropriate in this case.
The motion for anticipatory bail was denied.
The Court did clarify, nevertheless, that the applicant will not be harmed by the remarks made in this judgment in any further proceedings pertaining to this FIR.

REASONING

The State argued that in order to carry out a thorough and impartial investigation, the applicant must be questioned in custody in order to identify the true author of the counterfeit arbitral order.
Even though the police officers were the subject of a disciplinary investigation, no definitive action has been taken, and the ultimate determination about their involvement is still pending.
Even if the petitioner denies it, the Court noted that the claim that he presented a fake order to the police is serious and that a thorough investigation is necessary, which may involve questioning him in front of other witnesses.

REFERENCES

Written by Yaksha Kumari; an Intern under Legal Vidhiya

Disclaimer: The materials provided herein are intended solely for informational purposes. Accessing or using the site or materials does not establish an attorney-client relationship. The information presented on this site is not to be construed as legal or professional advice, and it should not be relied upon for such purposes or used as a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney in your state. Additionally, the viewpoint presented by the author is personal.