Delhi High Court
Narinder Kumar Arora & Ors. vs State & Anr. on 27 November, 2018
$~11
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Decided on:- 27th November, 2018
+ CRL. M.C. 1993/2015
NARINDER KUMAR ARORA & ORS. ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr. Varun Gupta for Ms. Pratiti
Rungta, Adv.
versus
STATE & ANR. ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. K.S. Ahuja, APP for the
State with SI Durgadas, PS
Saket.
Ms. Manmeet Arora & Ms.
Pavitra Kaur, Advs. for R-2.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
ORDER (ORAL)
1. On the criminal complaint (CC no. 10/01/2012) of the second
respondent, the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (South
District) directed the station house officer of police station Saket to
register first information report and carry out investigation as per law,
in wake of which directions FIR No. 108/2013 was registered on
01.04.2013 by police station Saket and investigation taken up for
offence under Section 420 Indian Penal Code (IPC), to which offences
punishable under Sections 468 and 471 IPC have been added later,
material in support of such additional offences statedly having come
up during the course of investigation.
2. The present petition was filed seeking quashing of the said FIR
and the criminal complaint invoking the jurisdiction of this Court
under Section 482 Cr.P.C., primarily on the ground that the allegations
are false and concocted, the circumstances not having been properly
construed by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate. The
status reports which have been filed by the State, on the basis of
investigation carried out thus far, reveal that the allegations in the
complaint which has been translated into FIR, calls for a deeper probe.
3. Against this backdrop when the matter was taken up on 9 th July,
2018, the petitioner through counsel had sought pass over to seek
further instructions. When the matter came up again for hearing, there
was no appearance on behalf of the petitioners. Thus, the matter was
adjourned for today subject to costs of Rs. 10,000/- to be deposited.
Though it is stated that the costs have been deposited with Delhi High
Court Legal Services Committee, when the matter was called out in its
turn there was no appearance on behalf of the petitioners.
4. At 4.00 p.m. when the matter was called out for hearing,
another proxy counsel appeared and wanted to mention and seek
adjournment on the ground that the main counsel was not able to
come.
5. The matter has been taken up against the above backdrop.
6. Having heard the submissions and perused the record, this
Court finds no good case for quashing the FIR or the criminal case in
as much as the petition, at best, raises questions of fact which cannot
be properly or effectively addressed in the jurisdiction under Section
482 Cr. PC. [Rajiv Thapar and Ors. Vs. Madan Lal Kapoor, (2013) 3
SCC 330] .
7. The petitioners may raise the contentions as to their innocence
in the ongoing investigation and if need be in the proceedings that
would follow thereafter in the criminal court.
8. Nothing in this order shall be construed as expression of
opinion on merits of the case.
9. The petition is disposed of in above terms.
R.K.GAUBA, J.
NOVEMBER 27, 2018
nk
