Delhi High Court
Sh. K.C. Pandey S/O Sh. Jagannath ... vs The State (N.C.T Of Dehli) Through ... on 14 September, 2007
Author: V Gupta
Bench: V Gupta
JUDGMENT
V.B. Gupta, J.
1. The present petition has been filed under Section 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR No. 230/2007 under Sections 365/342/506/120B/34 IPC P.S. I.P.Estate, New Delhi.
2. It has been alleged in the petition that respondent No. 2 moved a false and frivolous complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. along with an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. before the Court of Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi in which the complainant alleged that on 10th March, 2007, he was picked up from Gonda (U.P.). Subsequently, he was brought to Delhi and confined in the house of petitioners for about two hours.
3. The present petitioners have been falsely implicated by the complainant on the behest of one Mr. L.B. Pandey, who is cousin brother of the petitioner No. 1, for the purpose of harassment and mounting pressure upon them for settling his personal score.
4. After registration of the present case, investigation was carried out by the I.O. and status report was submitted before the concerned Metropolitan Magistrate wherein it was found that the complaint has no authenticity and all the accused persons have been falsely implicated by the complainant for the purpose of harassment and mounting pressure upon them so that they can withdraw the civil litigations pending at Gonda (U.P.).
5. It has been contended by learned Counsel for the petitioners that the alleged offence of kidnapping has taken place in Gonda (U.P.) and Delhi Court has got no jurisdiction and further civil litigations are pending between the parties in U.P. and just to put pressure, the present case has been registered against the petitioners and the petitioners have been implicated falsely in this case.
6. As per averments made in the FIR, the copy of which has been placed on record, serious allegations have been made against the petitioners, as it has been alleged that after kidnapping, the complainant was forcibly confined in the house of present petitioners in Delhi. Since, the complainant was confined in the house of present petitioners in Delhi, Prima-facie, the part of the offence has taken place in Delhi also.
7. The FIR in the present case has been registered only on 17th May, 2007 and it is well settled that the court should not quash the FIR when the police has not commenced the investigation and no proceedings at all is pending in any Court in pursuance of the FIR. The Court should not embark upon any enquiry in a case where the first information report discloses the commission of a cognizance offence, to find whether some person was actually involved in the case or not. This is the function purely entrusted to the investigating officer to arrive at a conclusion and to give a finding. Prima Facie, the F.I.R. registered against the petitioners requires investigation.
8. Hence, this petition is nothing but an abuse of the process of law and is misconceived and has been filed just to waste the time of this Court and accordingly the same is hereby dismissed with costs of Rs. 5,000/-. Costs be paid to the Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee within four weeks from today. If the same are not paid, it should be recovered treating this direction as decree of the Court by the Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee. The Registry is directed to communicate this order to Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee.
