Delhi High Court
Orion Infrastructure Ltd. & Anr vs State & Ors on 29 October, 2018
$~9
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Decided on: 29th October, 2018
+ CRL.M.C. 5120/2015 and Crl. M.A. 18468/2015
ORION INFRASTRUCTURE LTD. & ANR ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr. Sanjeev Sahai, Mr. Ankit
Anand and Mr. Shakil Ahmed, Advocates
versus
STATE & ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Sanjeev Sabharwal, APP for
State with SI Mahesh Kumar
Mr. Jayant Mehta and Mr. Ashok Jain,
Advocates for R-2
Ms. Jhum Jhum Sarkar, Adv. for R-3 to 9
Mr. Parth Sharma, Adv. for R-10
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
ORDER (ORAL)
1. The second respondent had approached the Metropolitan
Magistrate by a criminal complaint (CC 129/1A/14) impleading the
petitioner and third to tenth respondents herein as prospective accused
alleging offences punishable under Sections 177, 406, 420, 465, 469,
471 read with Section 34 and 120 B of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC)
having been committed.
2. The complaint was accompanied by an application seeking
direction to the local police (PS Tughlak Road) to investigate, such
prayer having been made under Section 156(3) of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973. The Metropolitan Magistrate, by his order
dated 13.10.2014, declined a direction to the police and instead opted
to take cognizance and called upon the second respondent
(complainant) to adduce evidence in pre-summoning inquiry under
Sections 200 and 202 Cr. PC.
3. The complainant approached the court of Sessions invoking its
revisional jurisdiction by Criminal Revision Petition (no.157/2014).
The said petition was allowed, by order dated 26.09.2015, and in
terms of the directions thereby issued, the Metropolitan Magistrate has
been called upon to pass a fresh order on the prayer under Section
156(3), taking into consideration the law declared by the Supreme
Court in its decision reported as Lalita Kumari Vs. Government of
U.P. and Ors., (2014) 2 SCC 1.
4. The present petition was filed invoking the inherent power and
jurisdiction of this court under Section 482 Cr. PC to assail the order
of the revisional court, the prime submissions being that the
complaint, against the backdrop of which the proceedings have arisen,
is actually a counter-blast to the first information report (no.55/2014)
that had been lodged by the petitioner against the complainant on
10.05.2014, it involving offences punishable under Sections 120B,
420, 468, 471 IPC. It is the argument of the petitioner that the
decision of the Supreme Court in Lalita Kumari (supra) was not
applicable, the revisional court not having taken into account the
exceptions to the general rule that the police upon being approached
with an information of cognizable offence must register a FIR under
Section 154 Cr. PC. It is submitted that the dispute between the
parties is in the nature of "family dispute" on which the Metropolitan
Magistrate was not bound to give such directions. It is also the
submission of the petitioner that the complaint was preferred by the
second respondent after a delay of five years, it having been initially
directed only against the tenth respondent and reference in this context
is made to a complaint dated 04.08.2009 addressed to DCP, Crime
Branch. It is the argument of the petitioner that the allegations roping
in other persons shown in the array of prospective accused are false,
concocted and fabricated and, therefore, not credible. It is also the
argument of the petitioner that the revisional court ought not have
interfered with the judicial discretion exercised by the Metropolitan
Magistrate in declining the direction under Section 156(3) Cr. PC.
The petitioner further argues that the second FIR is not permissible
and, in this context, reliance is placed on T.T Antony Vs. State of
Kerala and Ors., (2001) 6 SCC 181.
5. During the course of hearing, it was submitted by the
petitioner's counsel himself that investigation into the FIR
(no.55/2014) of police station Tughlak Road registered at its instance
has since been completed and a report under Section 173 Cr. PC
submitted, not proposing any prosecution. It is not disputed that the
allegations made in the said FIR, or the investigation that has been
carried out leading to such report of investigation being submitted, do
not cover the version of the complainant as in the case presented by
her.
6. The complainant's case, to put it simply, has been that her
digital signatures were forged and fabricated and on that basis certain
acts of commission have been committed leading to she and her
husband losing control over the company in which the petitioner and
others are involved. Though similar allegations qua certain acts of
commission or omission have been made by the petitioner against the
complainant of this case by the aforementioned FIR registered in
2014, it cannot be said by any stretch of reasoning or argument that it
is a case of second FIR respecting the same incident being insisted
upon. In these circumstances, the ruling in T.T. Antony (supra) does
not get attracted.
7. The Metropolitan Magistrate by his order on the complaint
declining a direction to the police under Section 156(3) Cr. PC had
taken a certain view. But then, the revisional court by the impugned
order has sought to remind the said court of the dicta in Lalita Kumari
(supra). The Metropolitan Magistrate is yet to take a fresh call in the
matter on the basis of guidance given by the revisional court. At this
stage of the process, the petitioner herein, it being a prospective
accused, has no role or say. There is no adverse order passed till date.
Whether or not the allegations in the complaint of the second
respondent are true or concocted is a matter of inquiry or
investigation. At this stage of the process, it cannot be said with
certainty that the allegations are incredible or the complaint is in the
nature of a counter blast. The submissions of the petitioner, at best,
give rise to questions of facts which cannot be effectively addressed
under Section 482 Cr. PC. [see Rajiv Thapar and Ors. Vs. Madan Lal
Kapoor, (2013) 3 SCC 330]
8. For the foregoing reasons and, in these circumstances, the
petition and the application filed therewith are dismissed.
R.K.GAUBA, J.
OCTOBER 29, 2018
yg
