9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (10) TMI 1537X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the application under Section 156 (3) of the Cr.P.C. was dismissed as withdrawn.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and Haryana High Court was dealing with a situation where the Provident Fund Inspector had filed a complaint which was withdrawn and, subsequently, filed a second complaint on the same cause of action before learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, which was held to be not maintainable.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 v ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o him for more than 10 years, and claimed themselves to be the Directors of SPL Marketing Private Limited. Sometime in April 2014, Varun Kalra (Petitioner No. 2) had approached him to invest money in his company for the purpose of starting a new business venture of importing cooling towers and its components. ii. It is alleged that accused/Petitioner No. 2 induced Respondent No. 2 to firstly pay Rs. 10 lakhs by way of cash on 10th June, 2014. Later, on 04th August, 2014, Petitioner No. 2 approached him again seeking the payment of some more amount, and, accordingly, Respondent No. 2 paid an additional sum of Rs. 9 lakhs. The payment of Rs. 9 lakhs were paid by way of Rs. 8 lakhs in cash and Rs. 1 lakh by way of Cheque bearing No. 0000012 dated 05th August 2014. In this regard, Petitioner No. 2 brought pre-printed documents as a loan agreement dated 04th August 2014 and promissory note dated 04th August 2014 on which he had signed and affixed his thumb impressions. iii. It was further alleged that Respondent No. 2 paid another sum of Rs. 2 lakhs by way of Cheque No. 0291721 dated 16th December, 2014 which was transferred in the account of Petitioner No. 2 bearing Account no. 1662100 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ioner No. 2 stated that his son was not present in India. Consequently, look out circular of Petitioner No. 2 was opened after which he returned to India and joined the investigation. 7. Upon completion of investigation, a chargesheet was filed qua the accused /Petitioner No. 2 on 18th October, 2018 under Section 420 of IPC and Petitioner No. 1 was not arrayed as an accused. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS 8. Learned Counsel for the Petitioners submit that the short question which requires adjudication in the present case before this Court is 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. It is also submitted by the counsel for the Petitioners that it is a settled law the withdrawal of a complaint amounts to the acquittal of the accused qua the said offences and, therefore, an identical complaint on the same facts is not maintainable. Insofar as Section 506 IPC alleged against Petitioner No. 1 is concerned, the investigating officer has not charge sheeted him. In support of their contention, reliance is placed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e chargesheet and states that there is sufficient material on record including the undisputed signatures of Petitioner No. 2 to show that he deliberately appended his incorrect signatures on the two cheques as he had every reason to believe that the cheques would be dishonoured. 13. Further, he submits that the accused/Petitioner No. 2 contemporaneously executed an agreement and a promissory note in favour of Respondent No. 2/Complainant. He places reliance on the FSL report submitted by the RFSL, Chanakyapuri, New Delhi of the agreement dated 4th August 2014 which bears the signatures of Varun Kalra which is enclosed to the supplementary chargesheet. It is also submitted that Petitioner No. 1, who is the father of accused/ Respondent No. 2, had assisted his son as well as threatened Respondent No. 2. He also alleges that no proper investigation as to the role of Petitioner No. 1, i.e., Satpal Kalra has been done. 14. It has also been submitted that various complaints are pending against Petitioner No. 2, Varun Kalra in different courts and he was not appearing in those proceedings, as he had fled abroad since July, 2023. It is further submitted that earlier also in the initial sta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ich demonstrates that except for the contents of allegations levelled against Petitioner No. 1 all the other allegations in the previous complaint as well as the present FIR are identical. It is further submitted that even as per the chargesheet, the allegations against Petitioner No. 1 could not be substantiated and therefore, he was not charge sheeted. 19. It is the contention on behalf of the Petitioners that since Section 506 IPC against Petitioner No. 1 stands dropped, the contents of both the complaints are identical and in view of the same, the present FIR needs to be quashed. 20. The relevant list of dates and events as detailed in the written submission filed on behalf of the Petitioners are reproduced as under: Dates Events 27.09.2016 Application filed by the Respondent No. 2 under Section 156 (3) CrPC was dismissed as withdrawn. 09.11.2016 Complaint under Section 200 Cr. P.C. was withdrawn without seeking any liberty. A statement of the Respondent No. 2 on S.A. was also recorded before the Ld. MM. 06.10.2018 After about two years of withdrawal of the said complaint, a fresh complaint vide D.D. Entry No. 25B with identical facts have been filed by adding the allegations u ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as dismissed as withdrawn after the registration of FIR. Thus, the contention of learned counsel for the petitioners that the FIR was registered after the dismissal of the complaint is factually incorrect. What was withdrawn was the application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. seeking direction for registration of FIR and, therefore, whether the same could be a bar for registration of FIR by the S.H.O. under Section 154 Cr.P.C. is the issue in the present matter. 24. It is a well settled legal position that the Cr.P.C.,1973, provides for registration of FIR by two means. First and foremost, the powers of the S.H.O. under Section 154 of the Code to register the FIR. The said section provides that every information relating to commission of cognizable offence, if given orally to the Officer-in-charge of the police station, shall be reduced in writing by him and the same is referred to as First Information Report. The Code further provides that the ld. Metropolitan Magistrate of the concerned Police Station can order investigation of an offence under Section 156 (3) of the Cr.P.C. Section 156 of the Code provides as under: 156. Police Officer's power to investigate cognizable case. 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... int and if satisfied that there are sufficient grounds for proceeding he can straightaway issue process to the accused but before he does so he must comply with the requirements of Section 200 and record the evidence of the complainant or his witnesses. (b) The Magistrate can postpone the issue of process and direct an enquiry by himself. (c) The Magistrate can postpone the issue of process and direct an enquiry by any other person or an investigation by the police. 3. In case the Magistrate after considering the statement of the complainant and the witnesses or as a result of the investigation and the enquiry ordered is not satisfied that there are sufficient grounds for proceeding he can dismiss the complaint. 4. Where a Magistrate orders investigation by the police before taking cognizance under Section 156 (3) of the Code and receives the report thereupon he can act on the report and discharge the accused or straightaway issue process against the accused or apply his mind to the complaint filed before him and take action under Section 190 as described above. 24.3. In the present case, it is not the case of the Petitioners that the learned Magistrate had taken cognizance when th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .e., after registration of the present FIR on 18.10.2016. 27. In Samta Naidu (supra), the Hon ble Supreme Court was dealing with the situation wherein a complaint was filed and the same was dismissed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate on merits under Section 203 of the Cr.P.C. The Complainant being aggrieved filed a revision before the learned Additional Sessions Judge and the same was dismissed as withdrawn and liberty was sought to file a fresh complaint. However, the learned ASJ while disposing of the petition noted that a new complaint can be filed at any time on basis of new facts and for which no permission was required from the Court and simply dismissed the petition on the ground that the Complainant does not wish to press the said petition anymore. Thereafter, a fresh complaint was filed by the Complainant on the same allegations but relying on additional material in the complaint. On the basis of the complaint cognizance was taken by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate. The issue before the Hon ble Supreme Court was whether a second complaint was maintainable or not. After discussing, all the judgments passed by the Hon ble Supreme Court on the issue, it was observed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... onal Court was definitely referring to the law laid down by this Court on the basis of the principles in Taluqdar. Thereafter a complaint with new material in the form of a credit note and Registration Certificate was filed. The core allegations, however, remained the same. The only difference was that the second complaint referred to additional material in support of the basic allegations. Again, in terms of principle laid down in para 50 of Taluqdar as amplified in para 16 in Poonam Chand Jain, nothing was stated as to why said additional material could not be obtained with reasonable diligence. 15. Reliance was, however, placed by Ms. Meenakshi Arora, learned Senior Advocate, on para 18 of the decision of this Court in Shivshankar Singh. In that case a Protest Petition was filed by the complainant even before a final report was filed by the police. While said Protest Petition was pending consideration, the final report was filed, whereafter second Protest Petition was filed. Challenge raised by the accused that the second Protest Petition was not maintainable, was accepted by the High Court. In the light of these facts the matter came to be considered by this Court as under:- 7. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nature of supporting material; and the material relied upon in the second complaint was not such which could not have been procured earlier. Pertinently, the core allegations in both the complaints were identical. In the circumstances, the instant matter is completely covered by the decision of this Court in Taluqdar as explained in Jatinder Singh and Poonam Chand Jain. The High Court was thus not justified in holding the second complaint to be maintainable. 28. In Joseph Salvaraj (supra), the Hon ble Supreme Court was dealing with a situation where the Complainant therein had filed a criminal complaint under Sections 499/500 of the IPC, which was dismissed by the ld. Judicial Magistrate on merits. Criminal Revision was filed against the said order which was withdrawn by the Complainant and thereafter filed a second complaint before the ld. Judicial Magistrate for the same offence against the same accused. In these circumstances, again after discussing the judicial precedents, the Hon ble Supreme Court held the second complaint was not maintainable. 29. In Supinder Singh (supra), the Hon ble Punjab and Haryana High Court was dealing with a situation where the Provident Fund Inspec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eet before the concerned competent Court. 32. Petitioner No. 2, however, in his petition has taken a stand in the following manner: 6. That Respondent No. 2 (Sh. Vishal Diwan) along with his associates runs a racket of extortion and blackmailing, wherein, under the false pretext of and illegal Chit fund/Committee, innocent people from humble family background are duped and induced by them into the business of Committee investment by promising huge returns on investment. Petitioner No. 2 (Sh. Varun Kalra), is also one of the victim of their racket as he was tricked/induced by Respondent No. 2 and has handed over him money to the tune of Rs 18-19 Lacs (approx.). 7. That somewhere in the month of January, 2014 the Petitioner No. 2 was approached by Respondent No. 2, when Respondent No. 2 introduced / explained Petitioner No. 2 about, Chit fund/committee scheme with huge returns, Respondent No. 2 also disclosed that the chit fund/committee organised by him is absolutely legal and organised by the local authority but did not produce any documents to establish the same. Therefore, the proposition to invest in the scheme was denied by Petitioner No. 2 at that very instance. 8. Thereafter, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ordingly with signatures however, the same were undated and unnamed. 12. That after Petitioner No. 2 shifted to U.S.A., in the year 2015, aforementioned blank and signed cheques were distributed by Respondent No. 2 to his associates and on the basis of same cheques, false and frivolous cases are registered against Petitioner No. 2, under Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 in Saket Court at New Delhi before Metropolitan Magistrate titled as (1) VISHAL DIWAN VS VARUN KALRA; (2) MUNISH RAHEJA VS VARUN KALRA; (3) CHANDERKANT MISHRA VS VARUN KALRA ; (4) VIKRAM DIWAN VS VARUN KALRA. (emphasis supplied) 33. The concerned Investigating Officer after investigating the matter has filed the chargesheet qua Petitioner No. 2 wherein it has been recorded as under: During investigation Sh. Satpal Kalra joined the investigation and stated that he never met Vishal Diwan regarding the matter and he is nothing got to do with the case and allegations made by Vishal Diwan are false and pressurize to me only. He denied for the allegation of threat. From the investigation allegations could not be substantiate against the company M/s SPL Marketing Private Limited and Satpal Kalra. No money was credited in a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ntentionally signed the differ signature on the cheque no. 000012 and 000017 A/c no. 16621930003106 and handed over the same to the Complainant and on representation the cheques were returned unpaid. Accused Varun Kalra who has joined the investigation as and when he was called for the same. He is a permanent resident of Delhi. He has been kept in column no. 11 of the Charge sheet. Accused Varun Kalra may kindly be called through notice and cognizance against him may please be taken. Witnesses may be called through summons to depose their respective evidences before the Hon ble Court and the trial may kindly be commenced upon. 34. As can be seen from above, the stand of Petitioner No. 2 that he was induced to invest with Respondent No. 2 in some committee is a matter of trial. 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. This again is a disputed question of fact and is a matter of trial. The promissory note placed on record by Respondent No. 2 shows that the Petitioner No. 2 has signed on the revenue sta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... itiation/continuance of it amounts to abuse of the process of court or quashing of these proceedings would otherwise serve the ends of justice. When no offence is disclosed by the report, the court may examine the question of fact. When a report is sought to be quashed, it is permissible to look into the materials to assess what the report has alleged and whether any offence is made out even if the allegations are accepted in toto. 36. The facts and circumstances of the case, as discussed hereinabove, do not warrant exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashing of FIR No. 273/2016 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. 37. The petition is accordingly dismissed and disposed of. 38. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. 39. Nothing stated hereinabove shall be construed as an opinion on the merits of the case and observations made are only for the pu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
