Back
2018 Supreme(Del) 1217
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J.
NAVEEN MALHOTRA – Appellant
Versus
STATE & ANR. - Respondents
CRL.M.C. 4682 of 2014 & Crl. M.A. 15933 of 2014
Decided on : 09-05-2018
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Vivek Sood, Mr. O.P. Gulapani and Ms. Prachi Gupta, Advs.
For the Respondents: Mr. Mukesh Kumar, SI Sunil Dagar, Mr. Vikas Walia, Adv.
The court upheld the registration of the FIR under Section 156(3) of the Cr. P.C. based on the finding that the subject complaint alleged subsequent and independent offences, distinct from the previous transactions.
Headnote:
Criminal Procedure Code - Registration of FIR - Section 156(3) - 30.09.2014 - The court upheld the Trial Court's decision to direct registration of the FIR under Section 156(3) of the Cr. P.C. despite the existence of previous FIRs related to the same property. The court found that the subject complaint and FIR alleged subsequent and independent offences, distinct from the previous transactions, and therefore upheld the registration of the FIR.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged the order of the Revisional Court dismissing the revision petition against the Trial Court's direction to register an FIR under Section 156(3) of the Cr. P.C. The complaint alleged that the petitioner had induced the complainant to advance a business loan of Rs. 5.50 crores by making fraudulent representations about the property's financial soundness and ownership, which was later found to be encumbered.
Finding of the Court:
The court found no error in the Trial Court and Revisional Court's decision to direct registration of the FIR, as the subject complaint alleged subsequent and independent offences, distinct from the previous transactions.
Issues: The issues revolved around the Trial Court's application of mind in directing the registration of the FIR, the existence of previous FIRs related to the same property, and the alleged subsequent and independent offences in the subject complaint.
Ratio Decidendi: The court upheld the Trial Court's decision to direct registration of the FIR under Section 156(3) of the Cr. P.C. despite the existence of previous FIRs related to the same property, based on the finding that the subject complaint alleged subsequent and independent offences, distinct from the previous transactions.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed, and the court upheld the Trial Court and Revisional Court's decision to direct registration of the FIR.
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J.
Crl. M.A. 965/2018 (condonation of delay)
For the reasons stated in the application, the delay in refilling the petition is condoned. The application is allowed.
Crl. M.A. 964/2018 (application on behalf of the petitioner for taking additional ground)
Since the grounds sought to be urged are purely legal, for the reasons stated in the application, the application is allowed, Petitioner is permitted to urge addition grounds.
CRL.M.C. 4682/2014
1. The petitioner impugns order dated 30.09.2014 whereby the Revisional Court has dismissed the revision petition of the petitioner impugning order dated 12.08.2014 whereby a direction was issued by the Trial Court under Section 156 (3) of the Cr. P.C. to register an FIR and investigate the matter thereafter.
2. The complainant-R-2 had filed a complaint with the police contending that the petitioner with the intention of cheating and committing a fraud on the complainant had approached the complainant for the purposes of availing a loan in the sum of Rs. 5.50 crores without having the intention to repay the same. It is contended that a fraudulent representation was made with regard to financial soundness of the accused company as well as its Director and accordingly complainant was induced in advancing a business loan of Rs. 5.50 crores.
3. It is contended that it was represented that the accused was sole and exclusive owner of the said property free from all encumbrances. Accordingly, the loan was sanctioned and disbursed after creating a mortgage in favour of the complainant. Subsequently the complainant got to know that the entire property had already been mortgaged with an NBFC. Not only was the property mortgaged with a non-banking financial corporation, the petitioner had even registered sale deeds of separate floors in favour of third parties.
4. It is alleged in the complaint that the said business loan of Rs. 5.50 crores was disbursed after execution of the separate loan agreements. The original sale deed in respect of the first floor of the said property was deposited with the complainant. Since the police did not act upon the complaint of the complainant, a complaint under Section 156(3) of the Cr. P.C. was filed before the Trial Court.
5. The petitioner, being aggrieved by the order of the Trial Court directing registration of the FIR, impugned the same before the Revisional Court. The Revisional Court by the impugned order dated 30.09.2014 rejected the revision petition.
6. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner contends that the Trial Court while passing the impugned order directing registration of an FIR did not apply its mind and had passed a mechanical order. Further it is contended that since earlier FIRs being FIR No. 48, 49 and 50 of 2013 under Sections 420/34 of the IPC Police Station Defence Colony, New Delhi had been registered with regard to the same property, there is an overlap of the alleged transaction in the said FIRs. Therefore, direction could not be issued for registration of the subject FIR on the same cause of action.
7. I am unable to accept either of the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner.
8. By the impugned order dated 12.08.2014, the Trial Court held as under:-
“5. Heard. Record perused. Copies of the loan documents executed by accused no. 2 on behalf of accused no. 1 have been placed on record. The schedule annexed to deed of mortgage executed on 29.09.2010 of the said agreement shows that first floor of property bearing No. A-331, Defence Colony had been hypothecated in favour of the complainant. The complainant has also placed on record a copy of sale deed dated 12.09.2010 whereby the second floor of said property has been sold by accused no. 2 in favour of accused no. 1.
6. Even though the said sale deed pertains to the second floor of the said property, however, the complainant has also placed on record copy of FIR No. 48/13, 49/13, 50/13 whereby it has been alleged that the 1st floor, ground floor and 2nd fl
