The Hon’ble Delhi High Court opined that the power to investigate under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. on one end intends to check arbitrariness by the police authorities to not to carry out investigation in cases where it is warranted and on the other end to ensure that the same is not invoked at the whims and fancies of the complainant. Merely alleging disclosure of cognizable offence, may not be sufficient to issue directions under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. if on the face of record the information lacks credibility and is not supported by documentary evidence relied by the parties. The delay in approaching the Court to report the commission of an offence after a considerable period of time also needs to be kept in perspective, along with the fact, if any civil proceedings are pending between the parties.

Brief Facts: 

The present petition has been filed against the judgement vide which the order directing registration of an FIR on an application preferred by the Petitioners was set aside. 

Brief Background: 

The dispute between the parties related to property. It was alleged that Respondent No.2 applied for mutation of property on the basis of forged and fabricated Will and GPA. 

Contentions of the Respondent No.2 : 

It was argued that merely because affidavit, receipt and agreement to sell were notarized in 1994, the documents could not be presumed to be fabricated, on the basis of which the registration of FIR had been directed.

Observations of the Court: 

It was opined that the power to investigate under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. on one end intends to check arbitrariness by the police authorities to not to carry out investigation in cases where it is warranted and on the other end to ensure that the same is not invoked at the whims and fancies of the complainant. Merely alleging disclosure of cognizable offence, may not be sufficient to issue directions under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. if on the face of record the information lacks credibility and is not supported by documentary evidence relied by the parties. The delay in approaching the Court to report the commission of an offence after a considerable period of time also needs to be kept in perspective, along with the fact, if any civil proceedings are pending between the parties.

The Court noted that If the Notary Public continues the process of registration post expiry of his licence, the document itself does not become forged, unless evidence comes on record that documents were not notarized by him or on his behalf and said fact was known to Respondent No.2. 

It was held that the non- extension of the licence of Notary Public makes the process of notarization on any document post his licencing period irregular but the same does not automatically lead to an inference that the document is forged by the executors.

It was also observed that GPA and will were duly registered. 

The decision of the Court: 

Based on the aforementioned reasons, the petition was accordingly dismissed. 

Case Title: Dharambir Singh & Anr. V. State & Anr. 

Case No.: CRL.M.C. 155/2021, CRL.M.A. 791/2021

Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Anoop Kumar Mendiratta

Advocate for Petitioners: Adv. Mr. Amit Chauhan

Advocates for Respondents: Advs. Mr. Ajay Vikram Singh, Mr. Vikramajeet Singh

Read More @LatestLaws.com: 

Picture Source :