Back
2015 Supreme(Del) 3279
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
P.S.TEJI, J.
B. SRIRAM & ORS. – Petitioners
Versus
GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI – Respondent
CRL.M.C. 450/2013
Decided On : 23.11.2015
Mr.K.T.S. Tulsi, Sr. Adv. with Mr.Vikas Singh, Sr. Adv. with Mr.Anil Kumar Sangal, Mr.Siddharth Sangal and Mr.Raj Kamal, Advs.
Mr.G.M. Farooqui, APP with IO Insp. Ramesh Chander, PS DIU/S.W. Mr.S. Bajaj, Adv. for R-2.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the discretionary power of the Magistrate under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. and the need for due application of mind in exercising this power.
Headnote:
Abuse of Process of Law - Criminal Complaint - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 156
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners filed a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking to quash a criminal complaint, an order dated 07.05.2012, and FIR No.98/2012. The complaint alleged that the petitioners, who were bank officials, facilitated the withdrawal of money from a deceased person's account based on forged documents. The petitioners argued that there were no specific allegations against them and that the registration of the FIR was an attempt to bring financial institutions to their knees. The respondent argued that the investigation was at an initial stage and interference by the court would prematurely end the prosecution case.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that there was no material against petitioner nos.1 and 2, and summoning them would amount to an abuse of process of law. However, specific allegations were made against petitioner no.3, who was the branch manager at the time of the alleged offence. The court also noted that the order under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. demonstrated due application of mind and rightly exercised discretion. Consequently, the court quashed the complaint and proceedings against petitioner nos.1 and 2 but rejected the prayer for quashing the complaint and order under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. against petitioner no.3.
Issues: The issues revolved around the abuse of process of law, the role of the petitioners in the alleged offence, and the exercise of discretion by the court under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that summoning the petitioners without any material against them would amount to an abuse of process of law. The court also emphasized the discretionary power of the Magistrate under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. and the need for due application of mind in exercising this power.
Final Decision: The court quashed the criminal complaint, order dated 07.05.2012, and FIR No.98/2012 against petitioner nos.1 and 2 but rejected the prayer for quashing the complaint and order under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. against petitioner no.3.
P.S.TEJI, J.
1. The present petition under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter mentioned as “Cr.P.C.”) has been filed by the petitioners, namely, Mr.B. Sriram, Mr.N.K. Arora and Mr. Ram Pal Singh for quashing of Criminal Complaint No.7/2 titled “Satwant Singh Dahiya v. Shakuntala Dahiya & Ors.”, for quashing of order dated 07.05.2012 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate-6, Saket Court, Delhi and FIR No.98/2012, Police Station R.K. Puram.
2. Factual matrix, emerges from the record, is that the complainant/respondent No.2 Satwant Singh Dahiya is the son of late Brig. B.S. Dahiya who expired on 08.04.2000. Smt. Shakuntala Dahiya is the second wife of the father of the complainant. Smt. Shakuntala Dahiya and her children were having strained relations with the father of the complainant, due to which his father executed a Will bequeathing his estate to the complainant and to the exclusion of other accused persons. Deceased was having a PPF account, a saving bank account and a locker in State Bank of India, R.K. Puram apart from other movable and immovable assets. Smt. Shakuntala Dahiya and Sh. Deshwant Singh Dahiya approached SBI, R.K. Puram to claim the money in the PPF account No. 900390 of the deceased. Smt. Shakuntala Dahiya filed a suit bearing CS(OS)No.584/02 and obtained an ex-parte injunction on 15.03.2002 restraining all the parties from selling, transferring, alienating, parting with possession or creating third party interest and maintenance of status quo with regard to the said properties. In compliance of the same, the Bank froze the accounts of the deceased. It was alleged in the complaint that on 12.08.2011, the accused persons including the bank officials including the petitioner No.3 facilitated the withdrawal of Rs.6,30,339.98 from the said PPF Account of the deceased on the basis of forged and fabricated documents. Thereafter, the complainant approached the said Bank on 01.11.2011 against the release of the said PPF amount to Smt. Shakuntala Dahiya. After a meeting, the Bank approached Smt. Shakuntala Dahiya who was requested to bring the PPF money back and the same was restored to the bank on 18.11.2011 which is now lying in the form of two TDRs. The complainant had prayed for summoning and punishing the accused persons for various offences.
3. The learned MM, on an application under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C, vide order dated 07.05.2012 directed the SHO, Police Station R.K. Puram to register a case. In pursuance of the directions, FIR No.98/2012 under Sections 404, 468, 120B, 465, 406, 471, 380, 466, 409, 472, 403, 467, 420 and 477A IPC was registered.
4. Feeling aggrieved of the filing of the criminal complaint, passing of the order dated 07.05.2012 and registration of abovementioned FIR, the present petition for quashing the same has been filed by the petitioners.
5. Status report was filed by the State. Arguments advanced by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and learned counsel for the respondent No.2/complainant have been heard.
6. Arguments advanced by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners are that there were no specific allegations against the petitioners in the complaint on the basis of which the ld. Magistrate directed to register the said FIR. The petitioners were the bank officials and had no personal role in the commission of the alleged offence. The petitioners cannot be proceeded against, as the principle of vicarious liability does not apply in the offences under the Indian Penal Code, 1908. It is further argued that the registration of FIR in the present case is just an attempt to bring financial institutions on their knees as it is an unhealthy situation to direct the police to register FIR only on the basis of contents of the application. It is further argued that there is no criminal conspiracy amongst the petitioners and at the maximum it only amounts to negligence in discharging of
