Narayan Kumar vs The State (Govt. Of Nc Tof Delhi )& ...
2015 Latest Caselaw 4681 Del

$~15
*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+      W.P.(CRL) 806/2014
                                             Date of decision: 03.07.2015

       NARAYAN KUMAR                            ..... Petitioner
                  Through: Mr.S.K.Duggal, Advocate.

                           versus

       THE STATE (GOVT. OF NC TOF DELHI )& ANR.. Respondent
                     Through:Mr. Rahul Mehra, Standing Counsel
                             with Mr.Jamal Akhtar and Mr.Amrit
                             Sen, Advocate for State.
                             Ms.Zeba Kumar, Advocate for
                             respondent No.2.
       CORAM:
       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR

ASHUTOSH KUMAR, J. (ORAL)

The petitioner seeks quashing of the F.I.R bearing registration No.286/2013 (P.S. Ambedkar Nagar) dated 1.7.2013 under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter called 'Code').

Respondent No.2 has lodged aforementioned F.I.R. alleging that a fake deal was made by the petitioner with one Manik Ahuja with respect to house No.108, DDA Flats, Madangir, New Delhi. Pursuant to such a deal, the petitioner filed a civil suit before the civil court for specific performance of contract. The further allegations in the First Information Report is that aforesaid Manik Ahuja had never entered into any deal with the petitioner and the averments made in the plaint regarding receipt of earnest money was

absolutely false. It was, therefore, alleged that a false document was used by the petitioner in a civil suit. The petitioner is also said to be making attempts to sell the aforesaid property to somebody else and in order to show his bonafide claim over the property, he has been repeatedly making endeavours to usurp the property.

The respondent has alleged that the property in question was actually purchased by him. In order to defeat the claim of respondent No.2, the petitioner, on two occasions committed trespass and caused damages to the property. Two F.I.Rs. were lodged, one by the police and one by respondent No.2, namely, F.I.R. No.228/2013, dated 1.6.2013 and F.I.R.No.243/2013.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the bare reading of the F.I.R. would disclose a civil flavour. There is a dispute over the property which is a residential house and only to project his claim over the property, repeatedly criminal cases are being lodged by the respondent.

It has been further submitted that the reference of the two FIRs in the present F.I.R. is of no relevance as in the aforesaid FIRs investigation is complete and charge sheet has been submitted.

From the perusal of the F.I.R., it appears that the offence alleged against the petitioner is a still inchoate. The respondent has alleged that repeatedly endeavours are being made to grab the property in question. The civil proceedings instituted at the instance of the petitioner, also does not appear to have been concluded and in case any document, preferred/filed by the petitioner, is found to be forged and fabricated, the law will take its own course.

The series of litigation between the parties is sufficient indication of the fact that the petitioner and the respondent are at loggerheads with respect

to a residential house.

Mr.Mehra, Standing Counsel, during the course of arguments submitted that pursuant to the filing of the present F.I.R., the petitioner approached the court below for anticipatory bail which was rejected. No steps have been taken by the petitioner to seek anticipatory bail from the higher court. Instead seeking protection, the petitioner has chosen to challenge the institution of the First Information Report.

Mr.Mehra, further submits that till date, without there being any protective cover, the petitioner has not been arrested. This indicates the fairness of the investigation. In case, the allegations made in the First Information Report would be found to be ingenuine, false or ed up for the purposes of staking claim over disputed property, closure report would be filed. But this ought not to be a ground for forestalling the investigation mid way.

The law with respect to police investigation is well settled since the inception of the Code. The power to investigate is plenary to the police and no intendments/fetters could be put over such powers. A court of law can only traverse in that arena if it is shown that the investigation is being carried out in a malifide and obtuse manner.

That the petitioner has not been arrested till date is definitely a ground to believe in the fairness of the investigation. This Court is conscious and mindful of the fact that there is a property dispute between the petitioner and respondent No.2.

In such background, no coercive steps would be taken against the petitioner till the conclusion of the investigation.

Needless to state that the petitioner would cooperate with the

investigating agency and would join investigation whenever he is called upon to do so. Whenever the investigating agency is of the opinion that the petitioner is not following the aforementioned condition, it would be at liberty to have the order of interim protection to the petitioner vacated.

Mr.Mehra, on instructions, submits that the investigation now only pertains to examination of certain documents which have already been taken possession of by the police and have been sent to forensic authorities. The investigation agency is only awaiting the forensic report.

Investigating agency is expected to conclude the investigation as expeditiously as possible.

With these observations, the petition is disposed of.

ASHUTOSH KUMAR, J JULY 03, 2015 Bisht