Delhi High Court
Javed Khan & Ors vs State (Govt ,Nct Of Delhi) & Anr. on 30 May, 2017
$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
RESERVED ON : MARCH 29, 2017
DECIDED ON : MAY 30, 2017
+ CRL.M.C. 4004/2016 & Crl.M.A.16765/2016
JAVED KHAN & ORS ..... Petitioners
Through : Mr.Ajayinder Sangwan with
Mr.Tarunesh Kumar, Mr.Kunal
Chopra, Ms.Sweety, Mr.Rohan
Sharma, Mr.V.P.Singh, Ms.Rishina
Parashar and Mr.Anirudha Kr.Rai,
Advocates.
VERSUS
STATE (GOVT ,NCT OF DELHI) & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through : Ms.Meenakshi Dahiya, APP.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG
S.P.GARG, J.
1. Present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been preferred
by the petitioners for quashing of FIR No.49/2001 registered under Sections
506/507/383/384/386/387/388/340/342/357/34 IPC at Police Station Subzi
Mandi. Status report is on record.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have
examined the file. It is relevant to note that the complainant Prem Chand
Anand has since expired.
3. It is a matter of record that upon completion of investigation,
closure report was filed by the Investigating Agency. The learned Trial
Court did not accept the closure report and by an order dated 23.9.2005 took
cognizance against the petitioners and they were summoned to face trial
under Section 506/323/448/451/452 IPC. Charges were framed against the
petitioners by an order dated 24.01.2015 for commission of offence
punishable under Sections 452/342/506/357/34 IPC. The petitioners did not
challenge the summoning order or order on charge.
4. It is also not in dispute that FIR No.291/2000 under Sections 63
and 65 of Copyrights Act was registered against Prem Chand Anand and his
two sons Mahender Kumar and Sanjiv Kumar on 8.8.2000. It is urged by
the petitioners' counsel that the instant FIR is counter-blast to the said
proceedings initiated vide FIR No.291/2000. It is relevant to note that the
Investigating Agency at first instance, did not lodge the FIR. The
complainant approached this Court by filing W.P.(Crl.)1127/2000 and by an
order dated 14.2.2001, direction to register the FIR was given. It was
informed by the learned Standing counsel that there were allegations of
commission of cognizable offences in the complaint and FIR would be
lodged.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners urged that the allegations in
the complaint have no substance. The FIR lodged by the complainant was
due to business rivalry. The incident, as alleged, never happened; no call
was made at 100. The complainant did not get himself medically examined.
The father of the petitioners had lodged a complaint on 10.08.2000 to DCP
for threats extended by the complainant. The trial has been inordinately
delayed.
6. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has refuted the
contentions.
7. As observed, charges have already been framed against the
petitioners and they did not opt to challenge the order on charge. At the time
of disposal of the Writ petition before this Court, the learned Standing
counsel appearing on behalf of the State had informed that prima facie there
was sufficient material disclosing commission of cognizable offence.
During investigation, statements of various witnesses were recorded and
finally closure report was field by the Investigating Agency concluding that
it was a case of business rivalry and there were contradictions in the
statements of the prosecution witnesses. The Trial Court, however, did not
accept the closure/cancellation report and took cognizance against the
petitioners for the commission of offence under Sections
506/323/448/451/452 IPC.
8. Contents of the complaint forming basis of the FIR reveal that
both the complainant and the petitioners were engaged in the business of
manufacturing of iron/steal hinges in Malka Ganj Road, Sabzi Mandi, Delhi.
It is alleged that the petitioners wanted monopoly in the area and falsely
lodged an FIR 291/2000 against the complainant and his sons. It is alleged
that the petitioners used to threaten the complainant to close the factory or
else to kill them and set the factory on fire. There is specific mention that
the petitioners armed with daggers entered the factory on the day of lodging
the FIR; slapped the complainant and his sons; gave them blows; confined
them in their office and criminally intimidated them. All these allegations
cannot be brushed aside at this stage. The allegations are specific and
definite. The petitioners have been named therein. Statement of the
complainant has been supported by the witnesses examined during
investigation. Truthfulness and falsity of the allegations primarily pertains to
the realm of evidence and cannot be gone through at this stage.
9. The law is very clear that the court should refrain from
quashing the FIR on the ground that the allegations made in the FIR are
false. Inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. though wide have to be
exercised sparingly, carefully and with great caution and only when such
exercise is justified by the tests specifically laid down in the Section itself.
Authority of the court exists for the advancement of justice. If any abuse of
the process leading to injustice is brought to the notice of the court, then the
Court would be justified in preventing injustice by invoking inherent powers
in the absence of specific provisions in the statute.
10. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the petition
lacks in merits and is dismissed. The petitioners, however, will be at liberty
to raise all these issues before the Trial Court during trial.
11. Observations in the order shall have no impact on the merits of
the case. Endeavour shall be made by the Trial Court to expedite the trial as
the case pertains to the year 2001.
12. All pending applications also stand disposed of.
(S.P.GARG)
JUDGE
MAY 30, 2017/sa
