Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + HC Indian Laws - 2018 (10) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (10) TMI 480 - HC - Indian LawsQuashment of FIR registered against petitioner - offences under Sections 420, 463, 464, 467, 468 and 471 of IPC - interpolation of records - it was alleged that membership is tainted and Samiti has no alive legitimate member. Held that - Even if the dispute in respect of membership attained finality till the State Government level (although writ petition is still pending) but in the civil dispute, the issues were different. Here the elements of mens rea is involved and the intention to cheat or to receive wrongful gains or act of forgery are to be seen. Both move in different arena and therefore, at this juncture it could not be conclusively mandated that no mens rea is involved, which otherwise, petitioner wants through this writ petition - Petitioner may produce all the documents before the Investigating Officer and may establish his part of truth and thereafter, Investigating Officer would decide on the basis of fact situation and documents available before him. Petitioner certainly has right of fair investigation for which Investigating Officer is duty bound to conduct the fair investigation. However, FIR at this juncture cannot be quashed. Parties are directed to cooperate in the investigation. No case for interference is made out for quashment of FIR - petitions dismissed.
Issues Involved:
1. Quashment of FIR registered under Sections 420, 463, 464, 467, 468, and 471 of IPC. 2. Allegation of manipulation and interpolation in the list of society membership. 3. Misrepresentation and fraud in obtaining the order dated 31/08/2016. 4. Distinction between civil and criminal proceedings in the context of the dispute. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Quashment of FIR Registered under Sections 420, 463, 464, 467, 468, and 471 of IPC: The petitioner sought the quashment of the FIR registered against him for the alleged offences under Sections 420, 463, 464, 467, 468, and 471 of IPC. The court noted that the matter pertained to the interpolation of some documents/records of the society, wherein the petitioner allegedly incorporated new members fraudulently. The court emphasized that the investigation was necessary to determine the authenticity of the documents and whether any wrongful gain was achieved through forgery. The court held that under the extraordinary powers vested under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., it could not delve into the factual aspects and could not quash the FIR at this juncture. The court highlighted that the investigation was yet to be unfolded, and the investigating authority was equipped to handle the allegations. Therefore, the petition for quashing the FIR was dismissed. 2. Allegation of Manipulation and Interpolation in the List of Society Membership: The respondent No.2 alleged that the petitioner manipulated and interpolated the list of society membership to gain control over the society. The respondent presented two lists of membership dated 14/07/2009, one containing 38 members and the other 43 members, indicating the addition of new members under the petitioner's signature. The court noted that the authenticity of these documents and the modus operandi adopted by the parties needed to be investigated. The court stated that the elements of mens rea, intention to cheat, and act of forgery were to be seen, which required a thorough investigation. The court held that the investigating authority should conduct a fair investigation and that the petitioner should cooperate by producing all relevant documents. 3. Misrepresentation and Fraud in Obtaining the Order Dated 31/08/2016: The petitioner sought recalling of the order dated 31/08/2016, alleging that it was obtained through misrepresentation of facts and fraud. The court noted that the order directed the Superintendent of Police, Morena, to take action in accordance with law if the complaint disclosed the commission of cognizable offences. The court found that the police authority registered the FIR after finding that the complaint disclosed cognizable offences. The court acknowledged that the non-disclosure of documents in the earlier litigation was deprecated but held that the civil and criminal proceedings were different in nature. The court reiterated that the investigating authority should weigh the pros and cons of the allegations and rebuttals during the investigation. Therefore, the petition for recalling the order was dismissed. 4. Distinction Between Civil and Criminal Proceedings in the Context of the Dispute: The court addressed the petitioner's argument that the dispute over society membership should be resolved through civil proceedings rather than criminal prosecution. The court referred to the judgment in Indian Oil Corporation Vs. NEPC India Ltd. And Ors., which stated that a civil dispute could not be converted into a criminal case. However, the court noted that in this case, the elements of mens rea and fraudulent intention were involved, which distinguished it from a mere civil dispute. The court cited the judgment in Sangeetaben Mahendrabhai Patel Vs. State of Gujarat and Another, emphasizing that the criminal case involved different factual grounds and elements of criminality. Therefore, the court held that the criminal proceedings were justified and could not be quashed on the basis of the civil dispute. Conclusion: The court dismissed both petitions under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., emphasizing the need for a thorough investigation into the allegations of forgery, fraud, and manipulation in the society's records. The court held that the investigation should proceed to determine the authenticity of the documents and the petitioner's culpability. The court also deprecated the non-disclosure of documents in the earlier litigation but did not find grounds to recall the order dated 31/08/2016. The petitions were dismissed with the direction for the parties to cooperate in the investigation.
|