Delhi High Court
M/S Gabrani Infrastructure Pvt. ... vs M/S Unitech Hi-Tech Developers ... on 5 October, 2016
1# $
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.M.C. 1989/2016
% Decided on: 5th October, 2016
M/S GABRANI INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD. ..... Petitioner
Represented by: Mr. Anish Dhingra, Adv.
versus
M/S UNITECH HI-TECH DEVELOPERS
LIMITED & ORS ..... Respondents
Represented by: Mr. Ravi Nayak, APP for the
State/R-13
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA
MUKTA GUPTA, J. (ORAL)
1. Petitioner filed a complaint against the respondents before the learned
Metropolitan Magistrate that having lured the petitioner to invest in their
project and taken the amount of `3,84,52,150/- as advance, the respondents
diverted the same to their different projects thereby committing offences
punishable under Sections 406/420/467/468/471/448/454/120B/34 IPC.
Before filing of the complaint, the petitioner had filed complaints before
SHO, PS Saket, DCP South District, Joint Commissioner of Police EOW and
Commissioner of Police requesting them for registration of the FIR. Since
the police was not registering the FIR, the petitioner filed the complaint for
the allegations as noted above along with an application under Section
156(3) Cr.P.C. wherein the learned Trial Court after hearing the arguments
directed the SHO, PS Saket to register FIR vide order dated 26th February,
2016 resulting in registration of FIR No.256/2016.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that on 1st April, 2016 when
proxy counsel for the petitioner appeared before the Metropolitan
Magistrate, the complaint was disposed of since FIR on the complaint of
petitioner was registered. It is stated that proxy counsel mistook that an
order under Section 210 Cr.P.C. was being passed by learned Metropolitan
Magistrate staying the proceedings of the complaint but when the order was
received by the complainant, the complaint was found to be disposed of as
not pressed. The grievance of the petitioner is that there would be no
monitoring of the investigation.
3. The order dated 1st April, 2016 which is challenged before this Court
reads as under-
"IO/SI Rajdeep Singh is present and has filed status
report.
It is stated by ld. Counsel for complainant that the
complaint may be disposed of as law will take its own course.
The complaint is disposed of as being not pressed.
File be consigned to Record Room."
4. The scope of interference of the Court at the stage of investigation is
no more res integra as has been laid down by the Supreme Court in its
various decisions. In the decision reported as AIR 1968 SC 117 Abhinandan
Jha & Ors. v. Dinesh Mishra the Supreme Court considering the various
provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure held that the field of
investigation of non-cognizable offences is exclusively within the domain of
the Investigating Agency over which the Courts cannot have control and
have no power to stifle or impinge upon the proceedings in the investigation
so long as the investigation proceeds in compliance with the provisions
relating to investigation.
5. In the decision reported as AIR 1980 SC 329 State of Bihar & Anr. vs.
J.A.C. Saldanha & Ors. the Supreme Court observed:
"There is a clear-cut and well demarcated sphere of activity
in the field of crime detection and crime punishment.
Investigation of an offence is the field exclusively for the
Executive through the police department, superintendence
over which vests in the State Government. Once it
investigates and finds an offence having been committed, it
is its duty to collect evidence for the purpose of proving the
offence. Once that is completed and the Investigating
Officer submits report to the Court requesting the Court to
take cognizance of the offence under Section 190 of the
Code, its duty comes to an end."
6. Thus, it is well settled that once directions for registration of FIR are
given under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., the Magistrate becomes functus officio
and he has no jurisdiction to interfere in the investigation. After
investigation is completed and a charge sheet is filed, the Court would
summon the accused, if required and in case cancellation report is filed, the
Magistrate may still issue summons to the accused on a protest petition filed
by the complainant however the same would be separate cause of action for
which the complaint was not required to be kept pending.
7. Finding no error in the impugned order, the petition is dismissed.
(MUKTA GUPTA)
JUDGE
OCTOBER 05, 2016
'v mittal'
