Nutan Shaw v. The State (Govt. Of NCT Of Delhi)

1# $~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + NUTAN SHAW ..... Petitioner Represented by:

Mr. Jayant Sud, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Sahil Ralli, Advocate.

versus THE STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI) ..... Respondent Represented by:

Ms. Meenakshi Chauhan, APP for State with SI Kuldeep, PS Bharat Nagar.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA

O R D E R

% 08.08.2018 1.

By this petition the petitioner seeks anticipatory bail in case FIR No. 195/2018 under Sections 419/420/506/120B/34 IPC registered at PS Bharat Nagar, Delhi on the complaint of one Chitra who stated that she was working as a Counsellor in the Mount Abu Public School, Rohini. Due to overload of the work she was not in a position to complete her daily routine work, hence the management stopped paying her salary. She made complaint which was marked to Nutan Puri who induced herself as Deputy Director in Education Department, Zone-X, Shalimar Bagh and got released complainant's salary. This act of Nutan Puri introduced confidence in the complainant and thereafter Nutan Puri offered her a job but since the complainant did not have the money demanded in lieu of the job she did not pay the same. However, the complainant was told that there are number of

seats available with the petitioner and if the complainant wanted her relatives or known persons to be appointed she should be informed. Accordingly complainant told number of relatives about Nutan Puri and from around 19 people approximately a sum of more than ₹1.50 crores were collected on the ground that job as guest teachers would be provided. 2.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the cheque book of the petitioner was stolen and there are improvements in the FIR. No investigation has been carried out to find out that from where the victims gave money. In the FIR only four victims are mentioned. There are no written documents of the alleged dealings.

3.

As per the FIR, though name of four victims namely Rekha, Sandeep, Rajesh and Subhash from whom ₹47,50,000/-, ₹17,00,000/-, ₹43,00,000/- and ₹14,00,000/- respectively were taken by petitioners, however, during the course of investigation it was revealed that in total 19 persons were cheated. Further though purportedly petitioner returned money of 11 people by cheques however, the cheques were not honoured either due to insufficient funds or signature differs. Though the claim of the petitioner is that her cheque book was stolen it may be noted that complainant Chitra lodged the above noted FIR on 31st May, 2018, whereas though the complainant in her complaint to the Court stated about her cheque book being stolen, the same was not stated in her complaint dated 1st May, 2018 lodged vide DD No.52B but stated about this later on in her complaint dated 9th May, 2018. 4.

Considering the fact that during the course of investigation statements of 19 victims have been recorded, this Court finds no ground to grant anticipatory bail.

5.

Petition is dismissed, however, facts noted above will not be treated as a final expression of opinion on the merits of the case. MUKTA GUPTA, J.

AUGUST 08, 2018 'vn'