2003 Supreme(Del) 157

High Court Of Delhi
SANJAY PODDAR - Appellant
Versus
CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION - Respondent
CRIMINAL APPEAL 1444 of 2002
Decided On : 02/13/2003

Headnote:Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 482 — Inherent power of High Court — Quashing criminal proceedings — Writ — Advocate accused of conspiracy or falsification/forgery of court records — Preliminary inquiry — Allegation could have been verified by simply inspecting court records by the verifying officers or the officer conducting preliminary enquiry which has not been done — Documents which were part of judicial record of the court in existence in 1985 and 1987 — Allegation of forgery or fabrication in 2001 does not stand to reason — Proceedings against petitioner-advocate quashed — Constitution of India, 1950, Article 226.

       Held :

       The scope of the preliminary enquiry was to find out the records and to fix the responsibility for the list placed in the record showing the name of the objectors and as to whether any favor was being shown to the litigants. This did not include the allegation of conspiracy or falsification/forgery of documents on the part of the petitioner herein. Perhaps, this was so because of the consistent nothings of various officials including the verifying officer that the allegation of falsification of records and criminal conspiracy on the part of the petitioner would be extremely difficult to establish in the absence of the original records. The preliminary enquiry was conducted and the said FIR was registered.

       The object of holding a preliminary enquiry before registration of a case is to see whether there is some truth in the allegations contained in the FIR.

       A suitable preliminary enquiry would be necessary in order to prevent incalculable harm if the FIR were to be straightaway registered. It is clear, thereforee, that the preliminary enquiry must, be a "suitable" preliminary enquiry and must not be a mere eyewash or be conducted in mechanical fashion without application of mind.

       In the present case, which involves serious allegations against an advocate of this Court, it was rightly felt by the CBI that verification reports be called for even before a preliminary enquiry be conducted. The allegations and, in particular, the allegation with regard to placing of forged documents in Court records could easily be objectively verified by simply inspecting the court records. It was, thereforee, imperative for the verifying officers and/or the officer conducting the preliminary enquiry to simply inspect the Court Records to ascertain the truth about the existence of Section 5A objections in earlier proceedings. This did not involve any sophisticated forensic techniques or gathering of evidence from disparate sources. All that was required of the verifying officer or the officer conducting the Preliminary Enquiry was to see the files of CW 1639/85 and CW 2645/1987 which were part of the record of this Court. This admittedly was not done. Had this been done it would have disclosed, that ex facie no cognizable offence was made out against the petitioner. This is apart from the question that scope of the preliminary enquiry itself did not include the question of forgery or fabrication on the part of the petitioner.

       The entire foundation of the allegation as disclosed in the said FIR insofar as the petitioner is concerned is that the petitioner was involved in a conspiracy with the other accused in forging/fabricating Section 5A objections on the part of the Runwell India Private Limited and of utilising these forged documents in the said three writ petitions to obtain the orders of this Court. Thus, if it can be shown by the FIR and the judicial record available that there could not have been any forgery and/or fabrication on the part of the petitioner, then the entire case against the petitioner would fall. It is, thereforee, imperative to consider the factum that in Balak Rams case (supra) the name of Runwell India Private Limited figures in the list of objectors. This is an undeniable fact as it is a part of the Court record in CW 1639/1985 as stated above. Furthermore, in the writ petition filed in 1987 (being CW 2645/1987) by the said Runwell India Private Limited and others the very objections which are said to have been fabricated and placed in the writ petitions 3236/2001, 3237/2001 and 3239/2001 are on record. We have compared the language of the objections filed in the 1987 writ petitions and those filed in the said writ petitions of 2001. They are identical. There is, thereforee, much substance in the submission that the documents in question could not have been fabricated in 2001 when they were already in existence in 1985 and 1987 and were a part of a the judicial record of this Court. It would also be pertinent to note that in 1987 when these very objections which are purported to have been forged and/or fabricated were part of the Court record in CW 2645/1987, the petitioner was not even an advocate as he had been enrolled only in 1989. This discloses very clearly that firstly, there is no legal evidence whatsoever in support of the allegation against the petitioner and secondly the evidence collected and/or available on record docs not disclose the commission of any offence or make out a case against the petitioner and thirdly that the allegations made in the FIR are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person could ever reach the conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the petitioner. When the Section 5A objections already formed part of the Court record in 1985 and in 1987, the allegation in the F.I.R. that the same were forged / fabricated subsequently is clearly absurd and inherently improbable. In 1987 the petitioner was not even an advocate much less an advocate representing the Land & Building Department. There is no question of his forging / fabricating any docu-ment when the same already insisted in the Court record in 1987. Even if it is accepted as alleged in the F.I.R. that the Section 5A objections are forged /fabricated, they were already in existence in 1987. Hence, petitioners involvement in the alleged conspiracy of forging / fabricating the same is clearly ruled out. No prudent person on the basis of these facts can ever reach the conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the petitioner.

       The power of quashing criminal proceedings should be exercised very spirangly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases. However, the present case is one which falls within this category of cases where the power of quashing a criminal proceeding must be exercised for the reasons aforesaid.