Back
2015 Supreme(Del) 4582
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J.
GULAB SINGH - Petitioner
Versus
STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR - Respondents
W.P.(CRL) 3086/2015
Decided on : 23-12-2015
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr. A.K. Bhattacharya, Advocate
For the Respondents: Mr. Avi Singh, ASC (Criminal) for R-1
Mr. Rakesh Malhotra, Advocate for R-2
The court emphasized the need for sparing and circumspect use of the power to quash FIRs under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Headnote:
FIR Quashing - Article 226 of the Constitution of India - Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure - 420/34 IPC - 1973 - [SUMMARY OF ACT SECTIONS]
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought quashing of FIR No.0936/2015, under Sections 420/34 IPC, registered at Police Station-Punjabi Bagh, claiming no involvement in the commercial transactions leading to the FIR.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that a prima facie case of commission of an offence under Section 420 IPC was made out against the petitioner, and no cogent ground was urged to warrant the exercise of the court's extraordinary power to quash the FIR.
Issues: The issues revolved around the petitioner's alleged involvement in the commercial transactions leading to the FIR and the application of Article 226 of the Constitution of India and Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the FIR.
Ratio Decidendi: The court applied the principles enunciated by the Supreme Court in State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal to determine the categories of cases where the power to quash the FIR could be exercised, emphasizing the need for sparing and circumspect use of such power.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the petition, finding it devoid of merit.
SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J (ORAL)
CRL.M.A.18924/2015 (Exemption)
Exemption granted subject to all just exceptions.
The application is disposed of accordingly.
W.P.(CRL) 3086/2015
1. The present is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Code) seeking quashing of FIR No.0936/2015, under Sections 420/34 IPC, registered at Police Station-Punjabi Bagh insofar as it names Gulab Singh, the sole petitioner herein.
2. Mr. A.K. Bhattacharya, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Gulab Singh would urge that Gulab Singh who is an employee of the DDA has nothing to do with the commercial transactions that led to the registration of the subject FIR. Mr. Bhattacharya would then urge that Gulab Singh is not the owner of the subject property. Mr. Bhattacharya would also urge that a civil suit being CS (OS) No.26/2015 instituted by the present complainant against the owner of the subject property, arraying him as a party defendant, is pending before this Court and that by way of order dated 27.01.2015, Gulab Singh who was defendant No.3, has been deleted from the array of parties. In this behalf, the order dated 27.01.2015, passed by Joint Registrar (Judicial) of this Court has been brought to my notice which reads as under:-
“I.A. No.203/2015 (seeking exemption from filing the certified copies)
Head and perused the file. Counsel undertakes to file the same at the time of admission/denial of the documents.
CS(OS) 26/2015
In view of the submission and facts and circumstances of the case, defendant No.3 is necessary dragged and made as a party who has nothing to do with the claim. Hence, the defendant No.3 is deleted from the array of the defendant as submitted.
Accordingly, summons of the defendant Nos.1 and 2 be issued by all the modes, including dasti as well, returnable for 21.04.2015. Steps be taken within two weeks.”
3. In other words, it is strenuously and repeatedly urged that Gulab Singh has been dragged into the subject dispute when he has absolutely nothing to do with it as is borne out from the order dated 27.01.2015 extracted hereinabove.
4. On the contrary, Mr. Avi Singh, learned Additional Standing Counsel (Criminal) appearing on behalf of the police would invite my attention to the allegations made in the subject FIR to urge that Gulab Singh had everything to do with the subject FIR.
5. It would, therefore, be relevant to extract the subject FIR in order to bring the allegations and accusations made against Gulab Singh:-
“NG-1955/SHO/PB. 8.9.15, dated 08/09/2015 To, The Station House Officer, Police Station Punjabi Bagh, New Delhi, Sub: Complaint against Maninder Shah Singh S/o. Sh. T. Shah Singh, Smt. Paramjit Kaur, W/o Sh. Maninder Shah Singh both R/o House No.134, Ground Floor, State Bank Nagar, Paschim Vihar, New Delhi-110063 and Gulab Singh, S/o Sh. Banke Singh, R/o 10/17 Jai Dev Park East Punjabi Bagh, New Delhi committing the offence of criminal breach of trust and cheating 406/420/34/120-B of Indian Penal Code. Respected Sir, I have been constrained to encroach your precious time due to unlawful acts of the aforesaid persons, who have duped me by their nefarious designs for committing the act by them constituting criminal breach of trust and cheating.
That the matrix of the complaint is as:- I was looking to buy a property, since Gulab Singh was known to me and he was aware about this fact. He came along with aforesaid persons represented to me that they are the absolute owner of the property bearing No.B-2/133, Paschim Vihar, New Delhi-110063. After inspecting the property, deal, struck between me and them and Mr. Gulab stood as guarantee of the transaction as he was known to both of us. Believing upon their assurance, I consented to purchase the subject property for a sum of Rs.1,75 Crores and in testimony of same an agreement to sell dated 05.01.2011 was executed and a sum of Rs.20 Lacs was paid in adva
