2024 (10) TMI 1537 - HC - Indian Laws

Cheating - Seeking quashing of FIR - Offence under Sections 420/406/506/120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 - According to the Complainant/Respondent No. 2, in the present case, he was induced by the accused to part with a considerable sum of money on, inter alia, the dishonest/false pretext of return (12-15%) besides assuring the repayment of principal amount. - whether the FIR under question can be allowed to be continue or deserves to be quashed in view of the fact that a similar complaint which was filed by the Complainant/Respondent No. 2 was dismissed as withdrawn? - HELD THAT - The Hon ble Supreme Court in Lalita Kumari vs Govt. of U.P. Ors., 2013 (11) TMI 1520 - SUPREME COURT , held that the registration of FIR is mandatory under Section 154 of the Cr.P.C, if the information discloses a commission of cognizable offence. In the present case, it is not the case of the Petitioners that the learned Magistrate had taken cognizance when the application under Section 156 (3) of the Cr.P.C. was dismissed as withdrawn. It is pertinent to note that no observations were made by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate on the merits of the case - There is no bar under the Cr.P.C. for registration of an FIR while a complaint is pending before the Metropolitan Magistrate. In fact, the Code provides for a procedure to be followed when there is a complaint and a police investigation in respect of the same offence. In Supinder Singh 1997 (8) TMI 545 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT , the Hon ble Punjab and Haryana High Court was dealing with a situation where the Provident Fund Inspector had filed a complaint which was withdrawn and, subsequently, filed a second complaint on the same cause of action before learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, which was held to be not maintainable. Admittedly, Petitioner No. 2 does not dispute his signature and thumb impression on loan agreement as well as the promissory note but takes a stand that the said documents were got signed by Respondent No. 2 which were blank - The stand of Petitioner No. 2, that he had signed the blank promissory note as well as cheques is difficult to comprehend, in view of the fact, that he is an educated business man and well-versed with the functioning of monetary transactions in ordinary course of the business that he was pursuing. Therefore, the said stand cannot be a bonafide claim. The facts and circumstances of the case do not warrant exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashing of FIR under Sections 420/406/506/120B of the IPC registered at P.S. Chittaranjan Park and the consequent chargesheet against Petitioner No. 2 pending before the Court of competent jurisdiction. It is further clarified that since Petitioner No. 1 was not charge-sheeted, therefore, no observation has been made with respect to him. Petition dismissed.

Summary

Issues Involved:

1. Whether the FIR No. 273/2016 should be quashed in light of a similar complaint being withdrawn.
2. Whether the allegations in the FIR are of a civil nature or constitute a criminal offense.
3. The maintainability of a second complaint or FIR on the same facts after the withdrawal of the first complaint.
4. The sufficiency of evidence to substantiate the charges against the petitioners, particularly under Section 420 IPC.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Quashing of FIR:

The petitioners argued that the FIR should be quashed as a similar complaint was previously withdrawn, implying acquittal. They cited legal precedents to support that an identical complaint on the same facts is not maintainable. However, the court clarified that the FIR was registered while a complaint case was pending before the Magistrate, and the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. was dismissed as withdrawn without any observations on the merits. The court emphasized that there is no legal bar for the registration of an FIR under Section 154 Cr.P.C., even if a complaint is pending, as per the provisions of Section 210 Cr.P.C.

2. Nature of Allegations:

The petitioners contended that the allegations were of a civil nature, involving a financial transaction without proper documentation. However, the respondent argued that the FIR contained all the essential ingredients of cheating under Sections 415/420 IPC, including deception and fraudulent inducement. The court noted that the chargesheet was filed after obtaining the FSL report, which supported the allegations of dishonestly inducing the complainant to part with money under false pretenses.

3. Maintainability of Second Complaint:

The court examined whether a second complaint or FIR is maintainable after the withdrawal of the first complaint. It referred to legal precedents, including Samta Naidu v. State of M.P., which allow for a second complaint if the first was not dismissed on merits. The court found that the complaint was withdrawn without a decision on merits, and the FIR was registered independently by the police, thus maintaining its validity.

4. Sufficiency of Evidence:

The court analyzed the evidence, including the loan agreement and promissory note, which bore the petitioner's signatures and thumb impressions. The investigation revealed discrepancies in the petitioner's signatures on the cheques, supporting the allegation of intent to cheat. The court held that these are disputed questions of fact that require trial and cannot be adjudicated under Article 226 of the Constitution for quashing the FIR.

Conclusion:

The court dismissed the petition to quash the FIR, stating that the facts and circumstances did not warrant such action. It clarified that the observations made are solely for the purpose of the petition and do not reflect on the merits of the case. The court emphasized that the trial should proceed to determine the veracity of the allegations.