IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
SWARANA KANTA SHARMA, J.
Deepak Khanna & Ors. - Petitioners
Versus
State, NCT of Delhi & Anr. - Respondents
Crl. M.C. No. 590 OF 2020
Decided On : 17-01-2023
Constitution of India, 1949 – Article 226 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 406, 34, 420, 120 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 482, 161 – Power of High Court Issue certain writs – Punishment for criminal breach of trust – Cheating and honestly inducing delivery of poverty – Concealing design to commit offence punishable with imprisonment – Petitioners have filed present petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for quashing of FIR bearing registered at Police Station for offences punishable Indian Penal Code – Held, Court without getting into merits of allegations made in FIR, police must be permitted to complete investigation – It would be premature to pronounce conclusion based on un investigated facts that complaint FIR does not deserve to be investigated and that it amounts to abuse of process of law – Needless to say during or after investigation if it is found that there is no substance in complaint made by complainant investigating officer may file an appropriate report before learned Magistrate which may be considered by learned Magistrate in accordance with law – Petition stands dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
Swarana Kanta Sharma, J.
1. The petitioners herein have filed the present petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ("Cr.P.C.”) for quashing of FIR bearing No. 0106/2019 registered at Police Station ("PS") I.G.I Airport, New Delhi, for offences punishable under Sections 406/420/34 of the Indian Penal Code ("IPC").
2. The brief facts of the case are that a written complaint was filed by the Complainant/Respondent No. 2 before PS I.G.I Airport, New Delhi, wherein the complainant had stated that she works in Air India at a senior level. It was alleged that the petitioners herein, who were friends of her husband, used to meet the complainant at Delhi Airport. In 2013, petitioners met the complainant and induced her to invest in a property in Hoshiarpur (Punjab), despite her reluctance to invest. After that, the complainant and her husband visited Hoshiarpur, where the petitioners showed them some properties/land. It was stated that complainant got entangled in the inducement and got ready to invest her hard-earned money in the land, and paid a total sum of Rs. 34,45,114/- (including Rs. 16,75,114/- as RTGS & NEFT transfer and Rs. 17,70,000/- in cash) to petitioner no. 1, i.e., Deepak Khanna to purchase the land admeasuring as 13 Kanal 18 Marlas. The said land was purchased via a sale deed executed on 27.09.2013 between the seller, namely, Sh. Karnail Singh (Deceased), and the purchaser, i.e., petitioner no. 1, for total consideration of Rs. 19,12,000/-. It is further stated that petitioner no.1 induced the complainant to execute a General Power of Attorney ('GPA') dated 07.04.2014 in favour of him and one Mr Anil Kumar, authorizing the said persons to look after the property. It was further stated that in 2014, petitioner no. 1 informed the complainant that they had started to sell the land in small plots to the buyers and in accordance with the same, the sale consideration of Rs. 4,40,000/- was given by petitioner no. 1 to the complainant’s husband in cash. In 2018, the complainant was informed that some plots from the land of the complainant were sold without her knowledge, and upon inquiring from the petitioners, none replied or answered her calls. It was also stated that at the time of execution of GPA dated 07.04.2014, petitioner no. 1 and the complainant had decided that the consideration amount against the sale of the lands in small portions to other buyers would be transferred into the bank account of the complainant.
3. Upon receiving the complaint, an inquiry was conducted by the police. After obtaining legal opinion from the prosecution branch, an FIR bearing No. 106/2019 was registered for offences punishable under Sections 406/420/34 of IPC at P.S. IGI Airport.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners states that the contents of the FIR are false and frivolous and that the complainant, her husband and her brother-in-law came to Hoshiarpur and showed interest in buying a property. It is stated that petitioner no. 1 was paid Rs.12 lakhs via RTGS by complainant to purchase the land admeasuring 13 kanals and 18 Marlas in the village Lohar Kangana, District Hoshiarpur, Punjab and the deal was finalized with one Karnail Singh for a total consideration of Rs.19,12,000/- in the complainant’s presence. It is further the case of petitioners that on 27.09.2013, i.e., when the sale deed was to be executed, the complainant called petitioner no.1 and told him to execute the sale deed in his name and to pay the remaining amount since she could not visit due to her busy schedule at work. It is stated that the relations between both the parties were good at the time of execution of the sale deed and that petitioner no. 1 made the payment and executed the sale deed in the complainant's name. After that, the complainant transferred an amount of Rs. 1.75 lakhs to petitioner no.1 and dues owed by the complainant are Rs.6,45,000/-. It is averred that the complainant, her husband and brother-in-law came to Hoshi
State of Haryana and Ors. v. Ch. Bhajan Lal and Ors.
The power to quash criminal proceedings should be exercised sparingly and only in exceptional cases, and the court cannot interfere with the investigation process unless there are exceptional circums....
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for specific allegations justifying investigation, the caution against interfering with ongoing investigations, and the need for....
The power of quashing criminal proceedings should be exercised sparingly and only in exceptional cases, as per the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court.
Cheating and forgery – A bonafide criminal prosecution cannot be quashed at threshold.
The court emphasized the limited circumstances in which an FIR/complaint can be quashed, as per the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that serious allegations, such as those involving extortion and physical assault, cannot be quashed based on a settlement agreement at the initial ....
Point of Law : The remedies available in law for false and vexatious charges have also been highlighted in the said judgment to dissuade the High Courts from exercising powers under Section 482 CrPC.
High Courts may quash FIRs under Section 482 CrPC only in exceptional circumstances, with a prima facie case against accused warranting investigation.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.