IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Sudhir Kumar Jain, J.
Kiran Taneja - Appellant
Versus
State (GNCT of Delhi) - Respondent
Crl.M.C. 6343 of 2019, Crl.M.As. 42280 of 2019 & 2069-70 of 2020
Decided On : 06-09-2022
Criminal Procedure - Quashing of Proceedings - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act,1988 - 420/467/120-B of the IPC - [Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure] - [Quashing of Proceedings] - [13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act,1988, 420/467/120-B of the IPC]
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a dispute over the ownership of a property after the death of the recorded owners. The complaint alleged illegal registration of a will and collusive activities to grab the property. The investigation led to the registration of an FIR under various sections of the IPC and the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that no concrete evidence could substantiate the allegations of forgery and cheating, and the prosecution sanction against the public servants was declined. The court directed the consideration of the Closure Report and allowed the aggrieved parties to be heard.
Issues: The issues involved the legality of the orders declining prosecution sanction, the consideration of the Closure Report, and the right of the aggrieved parties to be heard.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the right to issue notice at the time of consideration of the Closure Report is given to the informant and none else. The trial court erred in law by allowing the aggrieved parties to be heard at the time of consideration of the Closure Report.
Final Decision: The orders allowing the aggrieved parties to be heard were set aside, and the application for impleadment was dismissed. The trial court was directed to consider the Closure Report on its own merits.
JUDGMENT
1. This judgment shall decide present petition under section 482 code of criminal code of criminal procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred as "the Code") for quashing of proceeding and setting aside the orders dated 27.1.2018, 19.10.2019 and 08.11.2019 passed by the court of Shri Sanjay Khangwal, ASJ, Special Judge, ACB Delhi in CC bearing no. 55/17 (332/2019) and application bearing no. 2069/2020 filed by the applicant Vijay Gautam for impleadment.
2. The factual background necessary to mention is that Satya Devi Gautam was the recorded owner of the property bearing no. D-79, Panchsheel Enclave, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as "the property"). Satya Devi Gautam expired on 25.01.2011 and thereafter Ravi Dutt Gautam became the recorded owner of the property who expired on 28.04.2011 without leaving any legal heirs. Thereafter, Renu Joshi r/o D-15, Indra Enclave, Sainik Farm, New Delhi claimed that the property has been bequeathed to her by virtue of Will stated to be executed in her favour by Ravi Dutt Gautam wherein she was mentioned as sole beneficiary.
2.1. Parmil Mittal (hereinafter referred to as "the complainant") made a complaint in larger public interest to the Additional Commissioner of Police, Anti-Corruption Department, Delhi Government, Delhi regarding illegal and collusive registration of Will stated to be executed by Ravi Dutt Gautam in respect of the property. He stated in the complaint that after forging Will, it was illegally registered on 27.05.2011 i.e., after the death of Ravi Dutt Gautam by the Sub Registrar-IV, Delhi Government out of his jurisdiction and the registration of Will by Sub Registrar-IV, East Delhi was done knowingly and contrary to the established rules and procedure with a motive to grab the property illegally having high value. The property was required to be vested in the Government and to be utilised for public purpose. Sub Registrar-IV abused his official status in collusion with the alleged beneficiary.
2.2. The complaint was assigned to Inspector Pankaj Sharma for inquiry regarding the allegations made against Sub Registrar-IV, Seelampur. After inquiry and approval from Senior Officers, FIR bearing no.01/2013 was registered under section 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act,1988 read with sections 420/467/120-B of the IPC. Inspector Pankaj Sharma during investigation collected the necessary documents and also seized sale deed stated to be executed by Renu Joshi in favour of Gurinder Singh Sikka from office of Sub Registrar-V, Mehrauli and the sale deed stated to be executed by Gurinder Singh Sikka in favour of Saurabh Joshi, who is son of Renu Joshi.
2.3. Inspector Pankaj Sharma also seized letter pertaining to mutation of property which was issued by Deputy Assessor and Collector along with other documents. Inspector Pankaj Sharma also recorded statement of various witnesses under section 161 of the Code. During investigation Inspector Pankaj Sharma came to know that the Renu Joshi had claimed execution of Will in respect of the property in her favour by Ravi Dutt Gautam i.e. her maternal uncle on 29.03.2011 in the presence of witnesses, namely, Aditya Kumar Bhandari and Yugal Kishore.
2.4. Renu Joshi and Saurabh Joshi instead of joining the investigation filed a Criminal Petition bearing no. 429/2013 under section 482 Cr.P.C. titled Renu Joshi & another V State and others for quashing of FIR bearing 01/2013 by alleging that the said FIR was registered at the instance of K. C. Dwivedi, Additional Commissioner of Police in collusion with G.C Dwivedi, Additional Commissioner of Police, Anti-Corruption Branch, New Delhi through proxy complainant Parmil Mittal.
2.5. It was also surfaced during investigation that Gaurav Joshi, son of Renu Joshi got married with Sudha, who was the daughter of K. C. Tyagi and they were having the matrimonial dispute. The complainant, Gurinder Singh Sikka, Aditya Kumar Bhandari, Yugal Kishore Sharma, Saurabh Joshi and Renu Joshi were invest
The right to issue notice at the time of consideration of the Closure Report is given to the informant and none else.
Point of Law : Since such a direction takes away the power of the sanctioning authority to take an independent position after applying, its mind upon the material and evidence collected as to whether....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for a speaking order to indicate the material available for fair investigation when rejecting a closure report.
The judgment emphasized the importance of providing reasoning in judicial orders and the impact of such orders on the investigating agency and accused persons.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Magistrate is empowered to direct further investigation if the police investigation is found to be perfunctory, and the victim or close re....
The court emphasized that FIR registration must not happen without jurisdiction, deeming the original complaint as an abuse of process due to lack of standing and the excessive time elapsed.
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.