Delhi High Court
Umesh Verma vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi & Ors on 27 September, 2018
$~1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Decided on: 27th September, 2018
+ CRL.M.C. 5684/2014 and Crl. M.A. 19437-19438/2014
UMESH VERMA .... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Ruchir Batra, Advocate
versus
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Mukesh Kumar, APP for the
State with SI Amit Kumar
Mr. Prasanjit Keswani and Mr. RAghvendra
Pratap Singh, Advocates for R-3
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
ORDER (ORAL)
1. The petition at hand was filed invoking the inherent power of
this court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
(Cr.PC) to pray that the proceedings arising out of the first information
report (FIR) no.398/13 of police station Saraswati Vihar (the correct
police station is Subhash Place as shown by the copy of the FIR
appended at page 48 of the paper book) lodged by the third respondent
involving offences punishable under Sections 420, 468, 471, 120B of
Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) be quashed, it being in the nature of
gross abuse of the process of law initiated with malafide intention.
2. The petition has been resisted both by the third respondent
(complainant) as also by the State. The status report which has been
filed for and on behalf of the SHO of the concerned police station
(police station Subhash Place) pursuant to the directions of the court
indicates the process of investigation to be at an advanced stage,
forensic report having since been received, the same indicating forgery
of a document described as supplementary rent agreement dated
22.06.2012, the claim of the petitioner about presence of Gurcharan
Singh, brother of the complainant, being present at the relevant point
of time, having been found to be false and unfounded with clear
evidence showing he to have been abroad, having returned to India
later on 25.06.2012.
3. The dispute concerns a premises concededly owned by the
complainant which is stated to have been taken on rent by and in the
name of a partnership firm M/s. Sunaar, in which the petitioner was
one of the stake holders. It is his case that he was the proprietor of the
business in the name and style of M/s. U.K. Diamond, which was later
converted into a partnership firm with two others namely Aman Sagar
and Manish Jain. It appears from the pleadings and the submissions
that the petitioner had fallen out with his partners and, against such
backdrop, on 20.06.2012 Manish Jain one of the partners had executed
a document described as surrender of lease thereby handing over
symbolic possession of the premises to the landlords. It is further
alleged that on 22.06.2012, the petitioner also executed a similar
document styled as "surrender of lease" whereby he handed over the
vacant and peaceful possession of the demised premises.
4. It is, however, the case of the petitioner that he had been made
to sign the aforesaid document on 22.06.2012, the landlords i.e. Jagjit
Singh, brother of the complainant on his behalf and on behalf of other
co-owners having executed a supplementary rent agreement in respect
of the same premises in his favour, his tenancy and possession having
thus continued. It is also his allegation that on 05.07.2012, the
complainant and those on his side had committed criminal trespass
into the tenanted premises, removing his entire goods against which
backdrop he was constrained to file a civil suit under Section 6 of
Specific Relief Act, 1963. The suit concededly is being contested by
the complainant and his brothers (they being the owner of the
premises), it being presently pending.
5. It is in the context of the abovesaid civil suit that reliance was
placed by the petitioner on the document described as "supplementary
rent agreement" dated 22.06.2012. The FIR, quashing of which is
sought was lodged by the third respondent against the petitioner on the
allegations that the said document had been forged and fabricated.
6. A perusal of the FIR would show that it was registered on
06.09.2013 and investigation into the offences punishable under
Sections 420, 468, 471, 120B IPC was undertaken. Status report, as
has been adverted to above, shows that investigating agency has
gathered material supporting the case of the complainant against the
petitioner.
7. It is pertinent to also note that after the FIR quashing of which
is prayed had been lodged, at the instance of the petitioner, another
FIR no.557/14 was registered by the same police station wherein
allegations have been made concerning the same set of facts and
circumstances involving offences punishable under Section 420,
120B, 467, 448, 380, 468, 454, 403, 471, 465 IPC.
8. The arguments of the petitioner that the allegations made in the
FIR lodged by the third respondent are malafide or unfounded are
wholly devoid of substance or import. As noted above, there is
evidence already gathered during the investigative process prima facie
indicating the document in the nature of a supplementary rent
agreement to be a forgery. It is not fair on the part of the petitioner to
seek quashing of the FIR of the opposite party while the investigation
into the cross FIR lodged at his instance later is underway. Both the
FIRs may be concerning the same issues of fact from different angles.
But then, there is no reason why the investigation into the FIR of the
petitioner be given primacy, while the allegations in the FIR of the
opposite party be trashed at this stage by scuttling the probe. [see
Surender Kaushik and Ors. VS. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors.,
(2013) 5 SCC 148].
9. Even otherwise, it is trite that questions of fact cannot be
properly addressed in the jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr. PC
particularly when the investigation is still incomplete. [see Rajiv
Thapar and Ors. Vs. Madan Lal Kapoor, (2013) 3 SCC 330].
10. The petition and the applications filed therewith are dismissed.
R.K.GAUBA, J.
September 27, 2018/yg
