E.Mohandas vs State Nct Of Delhi
2016 Latest Caselaw 1329 Del

*   IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+   CRL.M.C. 3127/2012
                                  Date of Decision : February 19th, 2016

    E.MOHANDAS                                           ..... Petitioner
                         Through        Mr.Mohit Mathur, Sr. Adv. with
                                        Mr.Pradeep Sharma, Adv., Mr.Badar
                                        Mahmood, Adv. & Mr.Praman
                                        Mathur, Adv.

                         versus

    STATE NCT OF DELHI                                    ..... Respondent
                  Through               Mr.Vinod Diwakar, APP for the State
                                        SI Kailash Chand, Sec.-1, EOW.
                                        Mr.Ravinder Kumar, Adv. for R-2.

           CORAM:
           HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.TEJI

    P.S.TEJI, J.

1. The present petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter shall be referred to as the "Cr.P.C.") read

with Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the

petitioner for quashing the FIR No.804/2000, under Sections

420/468/471/120-B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), registered at

Police Station Connaught Place and all the proceedings pending in

pursuance thereto in the Court of learned Additional Chief

Metropolitan Magistrate, Patiala House Court, New Delhi.

2. Factual matrix, emerges from the petition, is that the petitioner

was working as Personal Assistant to Mr.Ramesh Kumar Jain who is

the Chairman & Managing Director of M/s Pashupati Spinning and

Weaving Mills Ltd. In the year 1993-94, the said company proposed

to launch a pharmaceutical project and therefore, required a drug

licence. For obtaining a drug licence, the company was required to

have a chemist/drug licence holder on its employment. Therefore, the

services of complainant Mr.L.D. Pandey were availed and it was

agreed that after successful commencement of the project, Mr.L.D.

Pandey would be absorbed as an employee of the company. The said

project could not commence and the same was abandoned in 1994.

3. On 13.12.2000, the complainant Sh. L.D. Pandey made a

complaint to the police to the effect that Mr.Ramesh Jain had not paid

the agreed dues on account of engaging the services of the

complainant as Pharmaceutical Consultant. It was alleged that on

17.02.1998, Mr.Ramesh Jain called the complainant to his office on

the pretext of settling the dues, but the complainant was forced to sign

papers. No dues endorsement was taken on the company letter head

from the complainant. During initial inquiry, it was revealed that the

papers bore forged signatures of the witnesses.

4. On the basis of complaint made, the FIR in question was

registered. After investigation, charge sheet was filed in the Court

against petitioner/accused E.Mohan Das and one Tota Ram Swami.

Accused Ramesh Kumar Jain was kept in column no.2. Vide order

dated 26.10.2012, Ramesh Kumar Jain has also been summoned as an

accused by the Trial Court.

5. Arguments advanced by the learned Senior Counsel for the

petitioner, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State as well

as learned counsel for the respondent no.2 have been heard.

6. Argument advanced by the learned Senior Counsel for the

petitioner is that during investigation of the case, the matter was

settled between the parties on 06.09.2001 and the complainant

furnished his affidavit to this effect in Crl.M.C. 3500/2001 which was

withdrawn on account of the law prevailing at that time. It is further

argued that the complainant succeeded in extorting a sum of Rs.11

lacs from the employer of the petitioner and never turned up to

withdraw the matter. It was on the demand of the complainant that an

experience certificate was issued to him and that too on humanitarian

ground to secure some job. One Mr.Tota Ram Swamy promised the

petitioner to help in reaching the settlement and getting it endorsed by

some officer of the Labour Department. It is further argued that about

12 years has passed since the filing of the charge sheet and yet the

charges have not been framed.

7. In support of the above contentions, learned Senior Counsel for

the petitioner has relied upon judgment in the case of Madhavrao

Jiwajirao Scinidia & others v. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre &

others (1988) 1 SCC 692 in which it was observed that the legal

position is well-settled that when a prosecution at the initial stage is

asked to be quashed, the test to be applied by the Court is as to

whether the uncontroverted allegations as made prima facie establish

the offence or not. It is also for the Court to take into consideration

any special features which appear in a particular case to consider

whether it is expedient and in the interest of justice to permit a

prosecution to continue. This is so on the basis that the Court cannot

be utilised for any oblique purpose and where in the opinion of the

Court chances of an ultimate conviction is bleak and, therefore, no

useful purpose is likely to be served by allowing a criminal

prosecution to continue, the Court may while taking into

consideration the special facts of a case also quash the proceeding

even though it may be at a preliminary stage. On similar point,

judgment in the case of State of Haryana & others v. Bhajan Lal &

others 1992 Supp. (1) SCC 335 has also been relied upon.

8. Further argument advanced by the learned Senior Counsel for

the petitioner is that there is an inordinate delay of 12 years on the

part of the investigating agency without any reasonable clarification.

On this point, judgment in the case of Pradeep Goyal v. Enforcement

Department MANU/DE/9866/2007 has been relied upon in which the

proceedings were quashed on the ground of inordinate delay. Next

judgment relied upon is in the case of Vakil Prasad Singh v. State of

Bihar 2009 Cri.L.J. 1731 in which the Hon'ble Apex Court quashed

the prosecution because the prosecution had failed to show

exceptional circumstances which could possibly be taken into

consideration for condoning the inordinate delay of more than two

decades.

9. On the contrary, argument advanced by the learned counsel for

the complainant/respondent no.2 is that the petitioner is one of the

perpetrators of the crime. Forged documents have been made by the

petitioner along with co-accused persons in furtherance of the

criminal conspiracy. Some of the forged documents pertain to

government officials. The allegations against the petitioner are matter

of trial for which evidence is available. Accused Ramesh Kumar Jain

had obtained the services of the complainant but failed to clear the

dues, therefore, the complainant was forced to lodge the complaint.

10. The main contention of the petitioner is that the complainant

had entered into settlement with the petitioner for which earlier a

quashing petition bearing Crl.M.C. 3500/2001 was filed in this Court.

If for the sake of arguments it is taken as correct that earlier the

quashing petition was filed for quashing the FIR in question, perusal

of order dated May 10, 2002 passed in Crl.M.(M) No.3500/2001

shows that the same was dismissed as withdrawn. No explanation has

been given by the petitioner as to why he remained silent for the last

about 13½ years. The ground taken by the petitioner is that the

complainant kept on extorting money from the petitioner and so far he

has extorted Rs.11 lacs from the company of the petitioner. No

complaint has been placed on record by the petitioner to substantiate

this plea that any extortion was made by the complainant.

11. Perusal of record shows that the date of incident of the present

case is 01.05.1994 and the FIR in question was registered on

13.12.2000. The charge sheet was filed in the Court on 28.11.2002.

More than 13 years have elapsed but the charge in the present case

has not yet been framed due to the delaying tactics adopted by the

petitioner. It appears that the petitioner is delaying the trial on one

pretext or the other. Even otherwise, the pleas raised by the petitioner

are matter of defence and trial and the petitioner would have ample

opportunity to put the same before the Trial Court.

12. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the

considered opinion that no case is made out for quashing the FIR in

question and no interference is warranted in the present case under

Section 482 of Cr.P.C.

13. Consequently, the present petition is dismissed.

(P.S.TEJI) JUDGE FEBRUARY 19, 2016 dd