Delhi High Court
Smt. Raj Bala vs The State (Nct) Of Delhi Through ... on 20 May, 2022
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Pronounced on: 20th May, 2022
+ CRL.M.C. 1738/2020
RAJ BALA ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Shiv Ram Singh, Advocate
Versus
STATE OF NCT & ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Mr.G. M. Farooqui, APP for R-
1/State
Mr.Rajinder Pal Singh, Adv. for R-2
Ms.Akanksha Choudhary, Adv. for
R-3
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE ASHA MENON
JUDGMENT
1. This petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., by the
applicant before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate (for short, "learned
MM") being aggrieved by the order dated 28 th February, 2020, passed in
C.C. No.24567/2019.
2. The petitioner had, along with her complaint, filed an application
under Section 156(3) of the Code of the Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for
short, "Cr.P.C.") seeking directions to the police for the registration of an
FIR for the commission of offences under Sections 379/420/406/465/
467/468/471/506/120B IPC against the respondents No.2 and 3 herein.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:MANJEET KAUR
Signing Date:20.05.2022
14:48:02
3. Mr. Shiv Ram Singh, learned counsel for petitioner, submitted that
the learned MM had fallen into error in dismissing the application under
Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. on the ground that on an earlier occasion, a similar
application had been dismissed. It was submitted by the learned counsel
that the fact situation was different when the earlier application had been
dismissed, as the petitioner was not in possession of any document to
substantiate her allegations. That was also the reason why she had
withdrawn her first complaint. It was submitted that in a civil suit filed by
the respondent No.2, he had filed copies of certain documents on the basis
of which, the respondent No.2 claimed that he had purchased a part of the
property from the petitioner. It was submitted that admittedly, the full
consideration has not been paid by the respondent No.3, despite having
been put in possession and the petitioner was thus defrauded of her
valuable property. Her original documents were also stolen by the
respondent No.3 and his associates. Despite these important facts, the
learned MM had declined to direct the registration of the FIR to initiate
police investigations. It was submitted that the respondents were not co-
operating with the inquiry that the police had sought to make from them, as
was evident from the Status Reports that they had submitted to the learned
Trial Court. Thus, on the basis of new facts, the complaint being
maintainable, the application also ought to have been entertained by the
learned MM and directions issued to the police for the registration of the
FIR and conduct investigations.
4. Mr.Rajinder Pal Singh, learned counsel for respondent No.2 and
Ms.Akanksha Choudhary, learned counsel for respondent No.3, on the
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:MANJEET KAUR
Signing Date:20.05.2022
14:48:02
other hand, submitted that the second application under Section 156(3)
Cr.P.C. was rightly dismissed by the learned MM as the facts, on the basis
of which investigations were sought, were identical in both applications. It
was also contended that the order dismissing the first application under
Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. was a speaking order on merits and therefore, the
second application could not have been entertained by the learned MM and
hence, it was rightly dismissed. In the replies of the respondents No.2 and
3, it was further submitted that the first complaint had also been withdrawn
by the present petitioner, without leading any evidence. Therefore, the
dismissal of the second application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. was
justified.
5. Mr.G.M.Farooqui, learned APP for the State also submitted that no
cognizable offence was disclosed and therefore, the learned MM has
rightly declined to issue directions for registration of the FIR.
6. While exercising the inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the
court must be conscious of the scope of such powers. In a petition under
Section 482 Cr.P.C., interference by this court, in exercise of its
discretionary power can be only when clear perversity or error is disclosed
on the face of the record.
7. In Dhruvaram Murlidhar Sonar Vs. State of Maharashtra, (2019)
18 SCC 191, the Supreme Court has held as under :
"8. It is well settled that exercise of powers under
Section 482 CrPC is the exception and not the rule. Under
this section, the High Court has inherent powers to make
such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:MANJEET KAUR
Signing Date:20.05.2022
14:48:02
under the Code or to prevent the abuse of process of any
court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. But the
expressions "abuse of process of law" or "to secure the
ends of justice" do not confer unlimited jurisdiction on the
High Court and the alleged abuse of process of law or the
ends of justice could only be secured in accordance with
law, including procedural law and not otherwise."
8. It may be noted, at this juncture, that Crl.M.A.6332/2022 has been
filed by the petitioner to bring on record certain additional documents,
being Legal Notice and the response thereto, which allegedly, disclosed the
mal-intent of the respondent No.3 as the respondent No.3, instead of
agreeing to pay the balance amount in the transaction, has offered to pay a
meager amount as sale consideration, though he was already in possession
of the suit premises.
9. Even if these documents were to be considered, it is clear that the
case of the petitioner does not get strengthened. The order of the learned
MM dated 31st October, 2018 with regard to the first application under
Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. has been placed on the record by the petitioner as
Annexure P-18. The said order is a detailed one, recording all the
submissions and contentions of the petitioner and noting the various civil
cases that were pending between the parties. Thereafter, it recorded that the
complainant had made a false plea of loss of the original documents of the
properties with some ulterior motives and therefore, material facts had
been concealed. Moreover, the possession of the petitioner of the suit
property was also doubted on the basis of the observations made by the
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:MANJEET KAUR
Signing Date:20.05.2022
14:48:02
learned Civil Judge and the learned Additional District Judge in appellate
proceedings.
10. On these counts, the learned MM found no ground to direct
registration of an FIR, as no cognizable offence was disclosed. However,
the petitioner was granted an opportunity to lead her pre-summoning
evidence under Section 200 Cr.P.C.. Interestingly, the petitioner chose to
withdraw that complaint. It may also be noticed that the revision filed
against this dismissal order was also rejected by the learned Additional
Sessions Judge on 22nd May, 2019. It is to be noticed that in the judgment
of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, a reference has been made to the
allegations of the petitioner regarding the theft of the documents by the
respondent No.3. It is also recorded that it was claimed that the possession
of the suit property had been taken under coercion and undue influence by
the respondent No.3 and that only a sum of Rs.38 lakhs had been paid and
the outstanding sale consideration was of Rs.2,42,00,000/-.
11. These are all noticed only to underline that all contentions raised in
the second application moved before the learned MM under Section 156(3)
Cr.P.C. were agitated on the previous occasion as well. To say that now as
the documents have been supplied in the civil matter, a fresh cause has
arisen to file an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., is misplaced.
12. If the learned MM chose to be cautious about not issuing directions
for the registration of the FIR, no fault can be found with it. There appears
to be no additional fact that justifies the filing of the second application
under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.. At the same time, the interest of the
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:MANJEET KAUR
Signing Date:20.05.2022
14:48:02
petitioner seems to have been taken care of by the learned MM by
permitting her to lead evidence in her complaint case.
13. The petitioner was aware of the existence of the documents in
favour of the respondents No.2 and 3, which is why she allegedly lodged a
complaint regarding theft of the documents. Now she claims that the
photocopies of the documents supplied in the civil suit in March, 2019,
revealed about the documents being forged. If on the earlier occasion, she
did not have the copies and therefore, she had to withdraw the first
complaint case, today, she apparently has those photocopies, supplied to
her, as also the response to her Legal Notice, which she has sought to bring
on record in these proceedings, to help substantiate her complaint. Thus,
dismissal of her second application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. has
caused no miscarriage of justice.
14. Thus, this Court finds no merit in the present petition, which is
accordingly dismissed.
15. The judgment be uploaded on the website forthwith.
(ASHA MENON)
JUDGE
MAY 20, 2022
s
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:MANJEET KAUR
Signing Date:20.05.2022
14:48:02
