Delhi High Court
S.P. Gupta vs State Of Nct & Anr. on 24 July, 2018
$~13
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Decided on:- 24th July, 2018
+ CRL. M.C. 2095/2015
S.P. GUPTA ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Mohit Mathur, Sr. Adv.
with Mr. Manoj Pant & Mr.
Sumit Misra, Advs.
versus
STATE OF NCT & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Akshai Malik, APP for the
State.
Mr. Avdesh Kumar Singh, Mr.
Rajendra Kumar Singh, Mr.
Chandra Shekhar Suman, Ms.
Harsha & Mr. Puneet, Advs. for
complainant.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
ORDER (ORAL)
1. The second respondent had lodged a criminal complaint case
(CC No. 896/1/2014) with the Metropolitan Magistrate alleging
offences punishable under Section 120 B read with Sections 406, 408,
409, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and
under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 having been committed
by certain persons including the petitioner qua the management of
Kirori Mal College of Delhi University where he (the petitioner) was
statedly working at the relevant point of time as the Vice Principal and
also as the Acting Principal. The Metropolitan Magistrate called for
action taken report (ATR) from the police in the context of complaint
that statedly had been filed with it earlier. On 14.10.2014 he
considered the application that had been filed with the complaint
seeking direction to the police under Section 156 (3) of the Code of
Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) and passed the following order:-
"14.10.2014
Present: complainant in person along with counsel.
EO/SI Ram Chander is present.
ATR filed on record.
Heard. Perused.
It has been stated on behalf of concerned SHO that
legal opinion from the prosecution branch was also
obtained in this case but certain queries are yet to be
clarified from the University of Delhi. It is to be noted
that serious allegations of cheating and forgery have
been levelled by the complainant against the officials of
Kirori Mal College and the prosecution has already
opined for registration of FIR in this case but the police
authorities have not yet registered the FIR.
In the facts and circumstances as revealed on
record, the court is satisfied that a prima-facie case is
made out which requires thorough investigation by the
police. Hence, the application u/s 156 (3) Cr.P.C. is
hereby allowed and the concerned SHO is directed to
register the FIR and investigate the matter in accordance
with the law. Compliance report be furnished within one
week from today and status report be filed for further
proceedings on 01.12.2014
(HARUN PRATAP)
MM-01/THC
DELHI/14.10.2014".
2. The petitioner feeling aggrieved challenged the said order in the
court of Sessions invoking its revisional jurisdiction by filing petition
(Criminal Revision 144/14), which, however, was dismissed by order
dated 10.11.2014. It may be added here that pursuant to the directions
of the Magistrate in the afore-mentioned order dated 14.10.2014, the
police registered FIR No. 204/2014 in police station Maurice Nagar to
take up the case for investigation into offences allegedly committed
under Sections 120B/409/419/420/467/468/471/477A IPC and
Sections 13 (2) and 13(1) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The
FIR was registered on 20.10.2014.
3. The petition at hand was filed invoking the inherent jurisdiction
of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. with the grievance that the
complaint is false and motivated and the proceedings are
unauthorized, the application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. being bad
in law.
4. Though reliance is placed by the petitioner also on the decision
of the Supreme Court in Anil Kumar & Ors. vs. M.K. Aiyappa & Anr.
(2013) 10 SCC 705 on the ground that no prior sanction has been
obtained before lodging the criminal complaint involving offences
under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 against a public servant,
the learned senior counsel, at the hearing, focused on another
fundamental issue that goes to the root of the matter, it concerning
jurisdictional error.
5. As noted above, the criminal complaint which was entertained
by the Metropolitan Magistrate alleged offence also under the
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The jurisdiction to deal with the
offences under the said special law vests in the court of Special Judge.
The court of Metropolitan Magistrate cannot be equated with the court
of Special Judge under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 which
is a special law with its own special machinery. The Metropolitan
Magistrate had no power or jurisdiction "to inquire into or try" the
offences under the said special law. It necessarily follows that the
Magistrate had no jurisdiction to direct such FIR to be registered
under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. The proceedings before the Magistrate
being unauthorized, the impugned order directing registration of FIR
and investigation cannot be allowed to stand.
6. The learned counsel for the respondents made a feeble attempt
to argue that the case also involves offences punishable under IPC.
But then, the allegation in the complaint are interlinked and have to be
considered and construed in their entirety. The FIR is "an inseparable
corollary to the impugned order" which, given the above noted lack of
jurisdiction, is a nullity [State of Punjab vs. Davinder Pal Singh
Bhullar & Ors. (2011) 14 SCC 770 ].
7. For above reasons, the petition is allowed. The impugned
orders of the Metropolitan Magistrate dated 14.10.2014, of the Court
of Sessions dated 10.11.2014 and the FIR No. 204/2014 of police
station Maurice Nagar, registered thereupon are hereby quashed.
R.K.GAUBA, J.
JULY 24, 2018
nk
