Michael Lebon vs The State & Another
2011 Latest Caselaw 1494 Del

*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                Judgment delivered on: March 15,2011

+      CRL.M.C. NO. 2688/2010

       MICHAEL LEBON                                   ....PETITIONER
               Through:      Rajeev Sirohi, Advocate

                       Versus

       THE STATE & ANOTHER                   ....RESPONDENTS

Through: Ms. Fizani Husain, APP for R-1.

Mr. Gaurav Bansal, Advocate for R-2.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJIT BHARIHOKE

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

2. To be referred to the Reporter or not ?

3. Whether the judgment should be reported in Digest ?

AJIT BHARIHOKE, J.(ORAL)

1. This is a petition under Section 482 CrPC seeking quashing of

FIR No. 736/2004 registered under Sections 420/403/506 IPC at P.S.

Kalkaji on the direction of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate under

Section 156(3) CrPC.

2. This case has a long history. Briefly stated, the facts relevant

for disposal of this petition are that on 01st August, 2003, Mary

Manuel, respondent No. 2 addressed a complaint in writing to

Assistant Commissioner of Police, Crime Against Women Cell,

wherein she prayed that a case be registered against Francis

Miranda and investigated in accordance with law. In the said

complaint, only allegation against the petitioner was that he had

introduced respondent No. 2 to Francis Miranda five years earlier.

3. That a notice dated 23rd March, 2004 was sent by the

complainant/respondent No. 2 to the petitioner Michael Lebon

through her advocates wherein it was alleged that the petitioner had

approached respondent No. 2 with a request for a short term loan of

` 20,000/-. He made a false representation that he required money

for treatment of his ailing family member and believing that

representation, respondent No. 2 advanced a loan of ` 20000/- to

the petitioner vide cheque No. 361296 dated 10th July, 2003 drawn

on Bank of Rajasthan, Panchsheel Enclave, New Delhi and that

cheque was encashed by him. Vide said notice, the petitioner was

called upon to return the loan amount with 12% interest.

4. That respondent No. 2 also filed a complaint dated 22 nd March,

2004 under Sections 200/156(3) CrPC in the court of learned

Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi and learned Metropolitan

Magistrate, on consideration of said complaint issued direction to

the SHO, P.S. Kalkaji to register a case on the basis of the complaint.

Pursuant to the said direction, FIR No. 736/2004 under Sections

420/403/506 IPC was registered against the petitioner and Francis

Miranda at Police Station Kalkaji.

5. In the said complaint, respondent No. 2 claims that the

petitioner Michael Lebon introduced her to Francis Miranda about six

years earlier. In first week of April, 2003, the petitioner and Francis

Miranda visited the house of respondent No. 2 and represented to

her that the divorce proceedings between Francis Miranda and his

wife were pending in Family Court at Agra and the wife of Francis

Miranda was demanding ` 2,50,000/- as alimony as a condition for

consenting to divorce. They also showed the relevant divorce

proceedings papers to the complainant/respondent No.2 with a view

to induce her to part with ` 2,50,000/-. Since respondent No. 2 was

pregnant and she was keen to marry Francis Miranda, she arranged

and gave ` 2,50,000/- to Francis Miranda. For that purpose, she also

borrowed a sum of ` 1,30,000/- at 12% interest from one Prem Singh

of Tibetan Market. Respondent No. 2 also claims that after receiving

` 2,50,000/-, the behaviour of Francis Miranda towards her changed

and she was beaten by Francis Miranda on 09 th May, 2003.

Consequently, she started bleeding and rushed to Moolchand

Hospital for treatment, where her baby was aborted on 30th May,

2003. Respondent No. 2 further claims that the petitioner visited

her on 10th July, 2003 and asked for ` 20,000/- for making payment

to the lawyer for the divorce proceedings. Believing the

representation of the petitioner, respondent No. 2 claims to have

given a cheque worth ` 20,000/-, bearing No. 36123 dated

10.07.2003 drawn on Bank of Rajasthan, Panchsheel Enclave, New

Delhi.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the FIR No.

736/2004 lodged on the basis of complaint filed by the respondent

No. 2 is liable to be quashed for the reason that it is nothing but a

bunch of falsehood against the petitioner and the FIR is motivated

with the intent to extort money from the petitioner and the co-

accused Francis Miranda. In support of this contention, learned

counsel for the petitioner submitted that if the version in the

complainant is to be believed, the petitioner took cheque of `

20,000/- from respondent No. 2 on the representation that aforesaid

money was required for payment to the lawyer of Francis Miranda in

the divorce proceedings. It is contended that however, this version

is contradictory to the stand taken by the respondent No.2 in the

legal noticed dated 23rd March, 2004 addressed to the petitioner

wherein respondent No. 2 has claimed that the petitioner borrowed

aforesaid ` 20,000/- on the pretext that money was required by him

for treatment of his ailing family member. Learned counsel has

pointed out that in the notice also, same cheque number has been

referred to which is mentioned in the FIR. From this, learned

counsel urged this court to infer from above contradiction that

respondent No. 2 is not telling the truth and she has falsely

implicated the petitioner with a view to extract money. As regards

the involvement of the petitioner in extracting ` 2,50,000/- from the

complainant by misrepresentation, learned counsel argued that this

version apparently, is false for the reason that as per the complaint,

the petitioner and his co-accused had allegedly taken ` 2,50,000/-

from the complainant/respondent No. 2 in the first week of April,

2003. Had this version been true, this allegation obviously would

have found mention in the complaint dated 01st August, 2003

addressed by the respondent No. 2 to ACP, seeking registration of

case against Francis Miranda. Learned counsel has drawn my

attention to the complaint dated 01 st August, 2003 addressed to the

Assistant Commissioner of Police, Crime Against Women Cell,

Nanakpura, wherein complainant/respondent No. 2 has alleged that

she gave ` 2,50,000/- to Francis Miranda as she was pregnant and

wanted to marry him and that Francis Miranda threatened to leave

her in case she did not part with a sum of ` 2,50,000/- which was to

be paid to wife of Francis Miranda in the divorce proceedings as

alimony. In this complaint, there is no allegation against the

petitioner. Therefore, it is obvious that the name of the petitioner

has been dragged in the FIR as an improvement.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that

during the pendency of proceedings, complainant had settled the

matter with the petitioner and co-accused of the petitioner for Rs.

2,50,000/- and after receiving that money in the form of Rs.

1,20,000/- by demand draft in her favour and Rs. 1,30,000/- by

demand draft in favour of Prem Singh, she has backed out from the

compromise. She even agreed to settle the matter with the

petitioner for Rs. 10,000/- in the Lok Adalat, but later she backed out

of said compromise. In view of the above, learned counsel for the

petitioner has urged for quashing of the FIR qua the petitioner.

8. Learned counsel for the respondent No. 2/complainant, on the

other hand, has submitted that though certain talks regarding

settlement took place between the complainant and the accused

persons including the petitioner in Lok Adalat, no settlement was

arrived at. Learned counsel has referred to the order of learned

M.M. dated 26th August, 2004 wherein he has inter alia observed: "It

is contended that besides introducing the co-accused Francis

Miranda to the complainant, applicant has also taken away blank

cheque of ` 20000/- from the complainant, which was later on

encashed in the name of niece of co-accused". From this, learned

counsel for the respondent No. 2/complainant has urged this court

to infer that the petitioner made an admission about having

received cheque of ` 20,000/- from the complainant, which shows

his complicity in the offence. Learned counsel for the respondent

No. 2 further submitted that the petitioner is not a truthful person

and he has tried to mislead the court. Thus, it is urged that the

petition under Section 482 CrPC be dismissed.

9. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the

record. On perusal of the complaint dated 22nd March, 2004 filed

by the respondent No. 2 in the court of Metropolitan Magistrate, New

Delhi, it transpires that in the said complaint, respondent No. 2 had

alleged that the petitioner induced her to give him cheque No.

36123 dated 10th July, 2003 for ` 20,000/- drawn on Bank of

Rajasthan by misrepresenting that aforesaid money was required for

payment of fee to the lawyer in the divorce proceedings of the co-

accused Francis Miranda pending in Agra Court whereas respondent

No. 2 in her legal notice dated 23rd March, 2004 has come out with a

different story by claiming that aforesaid cheque of ` 20,000/-

bearing No. 361296 dated 10th July, 2003 was given by her to the

petitioner on his misrepresentation that he required said money as a

short term loan for treatment of his ailing family member. Not only

this, perusal of the complaint dated 01st August, 2003 addressed by

the respondent No. 2 to Assistant Commissioner of Police, Crime

Against Women Cell, reveals that in the complaint, there is no

allegation against the petitioner and respondent No. 2 had only

asked for registration of case against Francis Miranda. The role

ascribed to the petitioner in the said complaint is that five years

earlier, he had introduced Francis Miranda to respondent No. 2.

10. The complaint addressed to the Assistant Commissioner of

Police is dated 01st August, 2003 i.e. after the loan allegedly given

by respondent No. 2 to the petitioner vide cheque No. 361296 for `

20,000/-. Had the version of respondent No. 2 in this regard been

true, there would have been mention of the same in the complaint

addressed to A.C.P. In view of the aforesaid contradictory stands

taken by the respondent No. 2, it can be safely inferred that the

allegations of the respondent No. 2 are not reliable and she has

roped in the petitioner as an accused in her complaint only for the

reason that he is a friend of Francis Miranda and he had introduced

respondent No. 2 to Francis Miranda.

10. Further, perusal of the copy of the order dated 26 th October,

2004 of learned Additional Sessions Judge, New Delhi reveals that on

26th October, 2004, a settlement was arrived at between the parties.

Pursuant to the settlement, it was agreed that the accused Francis

Miranda shall pay a sum of ` 2,50,000/- to the respondent No. 2 out

of which, a sum of ` 1,20,000/- shall be paid to the

complainant/respondent No. 2 by way of a bank draft in her favour

and balance ` 1,30,000/- shall be paid to Sh. Prem Singh in the

concerned court where a suit for recovery against the

complainant/respondent No. 2 was pending. It was also agreed that

after the entire payment, the complainant/respondent No. 2 shall co-

operate with the accused in compounding the offences under FIR

No. 736/2004, P.S. Kalkaji. Order dated 10 th January, 2005 of

learned M.M. in the same matter records that aforesaid settlement

was complied with by the accused but the respondent No.

2/complainant showed her inability to compound the case with the

accused persons unless she was paid a further sum of ` 20,000/-.

Perusal of order dated 29th January, 2005 shows that the accused

persons, with a view to settle the matter, offered to pay a sum of `

10,000/- to the complainant/respondent No. 2 which she agreed to

accept after initial reluctance. Therefore, it was ordered that matter

be listed before Lok Adalat. However, in the Lok Adalat on 06th

March, 2005, respondent No. 2/complainant backed out of said

agreement and insisted on payment of ` 20,000/- to her.

11. From the aforesaid factual matrix, it is obvious that the

complainant/respondent No. 2, after having arrived at a settlement

and receiving the payment, has backed out of the settlement and

demanded ` 20,000/- more, which demand was later on reduced to `

10,000/- and then increased to ` 20,000/- again. From this, it

appears that motive behind the FIR is to extract money from the

petitioner. Therefore, in my considered view, this is a fit case in

which interference by this court under Section 482 CrPC is called for.

12. In view of the above, petition is allowed and the FIR No.

736/2004 under Sections 420/403/506 IPC, registered at P.S. Kalkaji

as well as the consequent proceedings arising therefrom qua the

petitioner is quashed.

13. It is clarified that observations made in this order shall not be

taken as observation of this court on merits of the case qua the

accused Francis Miranda.

14. Petition stands disposed of.

(AJIT BHARIHOKE) JUDGE

MARCH 15, 2011 akb