I.C.Khurana & Anr. vs State
2011 Latest Caselaw 890 Del

             * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                            Date of Reserve: 21st January, 2011
                                             Date of Order: 14th February, 2011

+ W.P.(CRL) 1341/2010 with Crl. M.A. 14738/2010 &
  Crl.M.A. 14740/2010 & Crl.M.A.1/2011.

%
                                                                    14.02.2011

I C KHURANA & ANR                                               ..... Petitioner
                              Through Mr. Sanjeev Puri, Sr. Advocate with Mr.
                              Gyaltsen, Advocate.

                     versus


STATE                                                        ..... Respondent
                              Through Mr. O.P. Saxena, Addl. PP
                              Mr. Vikas Dhawan with Mr. Vikram, Advocates for
                              Complainant.


JUSTICE SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA

1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

2. To be referred to the reporter or not?

3. Whether judgment should be reported in Digest?

JUDGMENT

This petition has been filed by the petitioner for quashing of FIR

registered against the petitioner with Economic Offences Wing under Section

406, 420, 468, 471 and 120-B of IPC. The respondent in this case had

alleged that a supplementary agreement to sell dated 23 rd September, 2009

entered into between the parties, subsequent to agreement to sell dated 6th

May, 2009, was partially fabricated and forged by the petitioner as the

petitioner inserted an additional clause into the agreement dishonestly and

fraudulently so as to cheat the respondent of a huge amount of ` 20.00

crore. It was alleged that forged insertion was made without the authority of

the complainant in order to cause wrongful loss of ` 20.00 crore to the

complainant and wrongful gain to the accused persons. Counsel for the

petitioner argued that this FIR was false as no forgery was done by the

petitioner. However it is not disputed that the petitioner himself has also filed

a criminal complaint against the complainant alleging that it was rather

complainant who forged the same clause of the agreement by deleting a part

of it. This complaint of petitioner is also under adjudication.

2. It is settled law that an FIR can be quashed under Section 482 Cr.

P.C. only if all the assertions made in the FIR on being considered true, do

not disclose commission of an offence. An FIR cannot be quashed by High

Court by appreciating the evidence of both the sides as reflected from the

documents and coming to conclusion that FIR was false. In fact, that would

convert the High Court into a trial court. Under Section 482 Cr. P.C. High

Court cannot transport the trial of a case from Magistrate to itself and start

deciding, without evidence, whether the FIR was a false FIR or a truthful FIR,

by adjudicating claims of the parties on pleadings. Quashing has to be done

only in those rare cases where the entire allegations considered true

disclose commission of no offence.

3. In the present case both the parties are alleging forgery of same

clause of the same document. Under these circumstances, I consider it

would not be appropriate to quash the FIR, instead it would be appropriate if

the claim of the parties of forgery is adjudicated by the trial court after

evidence and the trial court gives a finding as to which part of the agreement

was forged and by whom. I therefore find no force in this petition. The

petition is dismissed.

FEBRUARY 14, 2011                        SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA, J.
acm