Delhi High Court
Muduli Suprava vs The State Of Nct Of Delhi And ... on 19 April, 2022
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Pronounced on: 19th April, 2022
+ CRL.M.C. 2328/2020, CRL.M.As. 16416/2020 & 4019/2021
MUDULI SUPRAVA ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Ajeet Yadav & Mr. Arunav
Tiwari, Advocates.
versus
THE STATE OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANOTHER
..... Respondents
Through: Mr. G.M. Farooqui, APP for
respondent No.1/State.
Mr. Harsh Singhal, Adv. for R-2.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE ASHA MENON
JUDGMENT
1. This petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing
of FIR No.349/2019 registered at PS Tilak Nagar u/s
420/467/468/471/120B/34 IPC and consequential proceedings arising
therefrom.
2. The contention of Mr. Ajeet Yadav, learned counsel for the
petitioner is that the entire case setup against the petitioner was so
improbable on the face of it that the FIR was required to be quashed.
Reliance has been placed on the judgment of the Supreme Court in State of
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:MANJEET KAUR
Signing Date:19.04.2022
14:47:46
Haryana and Ors. Vs. Bhajan Lal 1992 Suppl. (1) SCC 335 and Anand
Kumar Mohatta Vs. State (NCT of Delhi), (2019) 11 SCC 706 It is
submitted by the learned counsel that the FIR was a motivated one and was
so intended only to subject the petitioner to vexatious litigation in the hope
of some settlement being procured.
3. Learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner had approached
the respondent No.2/complainant and had promised to help her with
allotment of a DDA flat reserved for VIPs and which had been valued at
Rs.42 lakhs, for a sum of Rs.16 lakhs. According to the learned counsel for
the petitioner, this story was hard to swallow and no person would have
fallen for such an offer. Furthermore, there was no proof of any payments
having been made by the complainant to the petitioner since all the
payments made by the complainant had been claimed to have been made in
cash. There is only one witness, namely, the domestic help of the
complainant, who claims to have witnessed one such cash payment.
4. It was further submitted that the complainant had not come to the
court with clean hands, inasmuch as she was willing to defraud the
Exchequer, in effect thereby conspiring with the petitioner, if her story was
to be believed, accepting documents purportedly issued by the DDA, at her
own residence. Thus, if the case had to continue against the petitioner, the
respondent No.2 would also have to be impleaded as a conspirator.
5. Thus, it was submitted that when the entire story was so improbable,
the petitioner ought not to be subjected to the agony of a criminal trial.
Therefore, the learned counsel prayed that the FIR be quashed.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:MANJEET KAUR
Signing Date:19.04.2022
14:47:46
6. Mr. G.M. Farooqui, learned APP for the State submitted that the
case was coming up before the learned Trial Court on 20th April, 2022 for
framing of charge, and all submissions that the learned counsel for the
petitioner has made before this Court, could be raised at the time of
arguments on charge, and the petitioner could seek a discharge before the
learned Trial Court. It was further submitted that there were no grounds,
whatsoever, for quashing of the FIR.
7. It was also submitted that the petitioner was the main accused as she
had managed to fraudulently obtain documents and present the same to the
complainant, as if they were authentic official documents. It was submitted
that it would be only during trial that the prosecution would be able to
prove all facts, on the basis of which the petitioner is now trying to seek
quashing. Furthermore, the petitioner would have ample opportunity to
cross-examine the complainant to establish whether the story was probable
or improbable, to enable the court to come to a considered decision. Hence,
the learned APP for the State prayed for the dismissal of the petition.
8. Mr. Harsh Singhal, learned counsel for the respondent
No.2/complainant, submitted that the petitioner was a habitual con-woman
who was involved in several cases, sometimes promising employment and
at other times, promising some other benefit and the complainant had
fallen prey to her mechanizations. The respondent No.2 had made a
payment of Rs.30 lakhs to the petitioner, the details of which have been
provided in the FIR. It was submitted that apart from a case pending before
the Dwarka District Courts, registered in 2011 in which Non-Bailable
Warrants had been issued against the petitioner, during the time that she
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:MANJEET KAUR
Signing Date:19.04.2022
14:47:46
was on interim bail, she conned another person in Gurugram, in respect of
which a fresh FIR had been registered. It was therefore submitted that the
petition be dismissed.
9. While it is true, as urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner,
that the pendency of the other cases can not prevail upon the disposal of
this petition, yet, the court does not find any merit in the present petition.
The allegations against the petitioner are very clear. As stated in the FIR,
the complainant has explained that the petitioner had impressed her of her
having contacts in the DDA and having painted a rosy picture. The result
was that the complainant was lighter by Rs.30 lakhs. The details of the
payments have also been mentioned in the FIR. Whether the complainant
was so gullible to have believed the petitioner is not relevant, as it is not
the conduct of the complainant that is under query, but the actions of the
petitioner, which are to be determined as being criminal or not. The
arguments that the complainant ought to be tried as a conspirator are stated
to be only rejected as being frivolous submissions.
10. There is force in the submission of the learned APP for the State that
the prosecution must be given an opportunity to prove the case against the
petitioner. There is no merit in the argument of the learned counsel for the
petitioner, that prima facie, no case is made out against the petitioner, or
that the decision of the Supreme Court in Bhajan Lal (supra) would enure
to her benefit. The decision of the Supreme Court in Anand Kumar
Mohatta (supra) has absolutely no application to the facts of the present
case The ingredients of the offence have been prima facie disclosed and a
direct nexus has been drawn to the petitioner. Her intentions are also
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:MANJEET KAUR
Signing Date:19.04.2022
14:47:46
evident from the averments in the FIR. Thus, no ground for quashing the
FIR is made out.
11. In the circumstances, this Court finds no merit in the petition which
is dismissed alongwith the pending applications.
12. It is however, made clear that the observations in the present order
are only for the purpose of the disposal of this petition and the learned
Trial Court may proceed independently of these observations, including
while deciding the charge.
(ASHA MENON)
JUDGE
APRIL 19, 2022
ak
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:MANJEET KAUR
Signing Date:19.04.2022
14:47:46
