Delhi High Court
R.V. Chinoy vs State Of Nct Of Delhi & Anr. on 12 September, 2018
$~23
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Decided on:- 12th September, 2018
+ CRL. M.C. 4596/2018 & Crl.M.A. 31806-808/2018
R.V. CHINOY ..... Petitioner
Through: Ms. Amrita Panda & Mr. Neil
Chatterjee, Advs.
versus
STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Ms. Meenakshi Dahiya, APP
for the State.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
ORDER (ORAL)
1. The second respondent had filed a complaint (CC No.
17548/17) in the court of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, South-West
district with an application seeking direction to the police under
Section 156 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) to
investigate. The Metropolitan Magistrate, to whom the said matter was
entrusted, by his order dated 04.06.2018 issued directions to the police
granting the request under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C., taking note, inter
alia, of the fact that the averments in the complaint showed cognizable
offence having been committed, referring in this context to the rulings
of the Supreme Court in Lalita Kumari vs. State of U.P. & Ors. (2012)
4 SCC 1 and Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar & Anr. (2014) 8 SCC
273. The Station House Officer of police station Bindapur, in
compliance of the said order registered first information report (FIR)
no. 529/2018 on 29.06.2018 and has taken up investigation into the
offence under Section 420 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).
2. The petitioner whose role is alleged in the FIR, feeling
aggrieved, has come up with the petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India to pray for quashing
of the said order dated 04.06.2018 and FIR registered in its wake, on
the submission that the same is in the nature of abuse of the process of
law.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner, on being asked,
submitted that copy of the criminal complaint and the documents filed
therewith are not available with her, the petitioner concededly being
not privy to such record, no process having been issued in his name.
She, on being asked, stated that the criminal complaint has been
converted into the FIR. On being asked, she stated that the averments
in the said complaint (now FIR) are false and even otherwise on the
face of it do not disclose any cognizable offence having been
committed. She, however, would read the FIR selectively,
conspicuously omitting certain crucial portions, which approach was
found to be not fair.
4. Be that as it may, on plain reading of the FIR, it cannot be said
that it does not disclose any cognizable offence having been
committed. The complainant appears to have been engaged by the
petitioner as its Selling Agent- cum- Depot (SAD) for North India
area. The arrangement between the parties on this score may have
given rise to certain rights and obligations that may be civil in nature.
But then, there are allegations of the services of SAD having been
brought to an end and the goods from the premises of the complainant
having been taken away on mis-representation that the value thereof
would be made good and thereby causing wrongful loss.
5. The contentions of the petitioner that the allegations of the
complainant are factually incorrect cannot be a ground at this stage of
the process of investigation to be brought to an end. The following
observations of the Supreme Court in this context in Rajiv Thapar and
Ors. Vs. Madan Lal Kapoor, (2013) 3 SCC 330 need to be borne in
mind.
"29. The issue being examined in the instant case is the
jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 CrPC,
if it chooses to quash the initiation of the prosecution
against an accused at the stage of issuing process, or at
the stage of committal, or even at the stage of framing
of charges. These are all stages before the
commencement of the actual trial. The same
parameters would naturally be available for later
stages as well. The power vested in the High Court
under Section 482 CrPC, at the stages referred to
hereinabove, would have far-reaching consequences
inasmuch as it would negate the
prosecution's/complainant's case without allowing the
prosecution/complainant to lead evidence. Such a
determination must always be rendered with caution,
care and circumspection. To invoke its inherent
jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC the High Court
has to be fully satisfied that the material produced by
the accused is such that would lead to the conclusion
that his/their defence is based on sound, reasonable,
and indubitable facts; the material produced is such as
would rule out and displace the assertions contained in
the charges levelled against the accused; and the
material produced is such as would clearly reject and
overrule the veracity of the allegations contained in the
accusations levelled by the prosecution/complainant. It
should be sufficient to rule out, reject and discard the
accusations levelled by the prosecution/complainant,
without the necessity of recording any evidence. For
this the material relied upon by the defence should not
have been refuted, or alternatively, cannot be
justifiably refuted, being material of sterling and
impeccable quality. The material relied upon by the
accused should be such as would persuade a
reasonable person to dismiss and condemn the actual
basis of the accusations as false. In such a situation, the
judicial conscience of the High Court would persuade it
to exercise its power under Section 482 CrPC to quash
such criminal proceedings, for that would prevent
abuse of process of the court, and secure the ends of
justice."
(emphasis supplied)
6. For the foregoing reasons, this Court declines to interfere with
the investigative process at this stage.
7. The petition and the applications filed therewith are dismissed.
R.K.GAUBA, J.
SEPTEMBER 12, 2018
nk
