IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Swarana Kanta Sharma, J.
Shatrughan Shahi – Appellant
Versus
State of NCT of Delhi & Anr. – Respondents
Cr.M.C. 2365 of 2020 & Cr.M.A. 16682 of 2020
Decided On : 13-02-2023
FIR Quashing - Alleged Financial Fraud - IPC 420/406/34 - Cr.P.C. 482
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a police officer, seeks quashing of an FIR alleging her involvement in a financial fraud case. The complainant alleges that the petitioner and others induced him to invest in a railway project and duped him of a large sum of money.
Finding of the Court:
The court dismissed the petition, stating that the allegations were not entirely absurd or improbable, and the case did not warrant quashing at this stage. The court emphasized that the petitioner's contentions could be raised during the trial.
Issues: The main issue was whether the allegations against the petitioner warranted quashing of the criminal proceedings.
Ratio Decidendi: The court cited the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Bhajan Lal and Neeharika Infrastructure, emphasizing that the power of quashing should be exercised sparingly and only in exceptional cases.
Final Decision: The petition for quashing of criminal proceedings was dismissed, with a clarification that the judgment would not affect the merits of the case during the trial.
JUDGMENT
Swarana Kanta Sharma, J.
1. By way of the present petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,1973 (hereinafter "Cr.P.C."), petitioner seeks quashing of FIR bearing no. 488/2020 registered at Police Station Dwarka (North), Delhi for offences punishable under Sections 420/406/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter "IPC").
2. The present FIR was registered on the complaint of one Mr. Rahul Gupta ("complainant") who had started a cconsultancy business in the name of 'M/s Ambience Home & Developers. in March, 2015 along with one Mr. Surya Kant Goyal. It is alleged that during hawan ceremony of his new office, he was made to meet one Mr. Abhishek Aggarwal and Mr. Shatrughan, who were introduced to him by Mr. Surya Kant Goyal. In March 2015 itself, Mr. Abhishek Aggarwal approached the complainant and requested for a sum of Rs. 15 lakhs on pretext of some urgent need/emergency and on the assurance of Mr. Surya Kant Goyal, the complainant paid Rs. 15 lakhs to Mr. Abhishek Aggarwal, and the said amount was then returned to him in June 2015. Thereafter, again in August 2015, Mr. Abhishek Aggarwal and Mr. Shatrughan came to complainant's office and requested Rs. 25 lakhs. The complainant again paid Rs. 25 lakhs to them and the same was returned to him in December 2015. It is alleged that in March 2016, Mr. Surya Kant Goyal called the complainant to a hotel where Mr. Abhishek Aggarwal, his wife Ms. Meenakshi Agarwal and Mr. Shatrughan were present and the said persons induced the complainant to invest in an upcoming railway project in Ahmedabad, Gujarat, for which he was asked to pay/invest Rs. 2.5 crores, out of total requirement of Rs. 10 crores. In order to gain his trust, the aforesaid persons took the complainant to Rail Bhawan and Parliament House, where he was made to wait outside the premises, and was later informed by the aforesaid persons that they had met the Railway Minister as well as his PA and that the Minister concerned had assured them of the allocation of upcoming project in Ahmedabad. It is alleged that in April 2016, complainant was informed by Mr. Abhishek Aggarwal that they had been allotted railway project, and he was asked to pay Rs. 20 lakhs immediately. Upon reaching a hotel, where the aforesaid persons were present, the complainant handed over Rs. 20 lakhs to Ms. Meenakshi Aggarwal. Further, in June 2016 again, the complainant was asked to pay Rs. 25 lakhs by Ms. Meenakshi Aggarwal, and the said amount was paid. Again in December 2016, Rs. 25 lakhs were paid by complainant to Mr. Shatrughan and Mr. Vinod. In a subsequent meeting which took place in a hotel in March 2017, the complainant was made to meet a person, who was allegedly the P.A. of Railway Minister, and he was assured that project work was scheduled to start in November 2017. The complainant was further told by Mr. Shatrughan, a government employee, that he had seen all the project related documents and that he was himself investing in the same. Thereafter, in January 2018, the complainant was taken to Ahmedabad by the aforesaid persons to see the location of railway project, a video of which was also shot by the complainant. It is further alleged that in February 2018, Ms. Meenakshi Aggarwal and Mr. Abhishek Aggarwal asked the complainant to arrange Rs. 50 lakhs more, and as per request, the same was paid by the complainant in cash to them. Again in May 2018, complainant was asked by Mr. Abhishek Aggarwal to pay Rs. 1 crore, and upon complainant's request to give something as surety in return of his money, Mr. Abhishek Aggarwal offered him his flat in Dwarka, Delhi. Thereafter, some agreements were signed between him and complainant paid Rs. 70 lakhs to Ms. Meenakshi Aggarwal on 21.05.2018. However, later on, complainant got to know that the said flat did not belong to Mr. Abhishek Aggarwal and was owned by someone else. In January 2019, the complainant demanded back his money, upon which, Mr. Abhishek Aggarwa
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.
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 power to quash an FIR under Section 482 Cr.P.C. should be exercised sparingly and only in exceptional cases, and the court should not interfere at the stage of investigation unless there is a ris....
The court established that the inherent power to quash FIRs under Section 482 Cr.P.C. should be exercised cautiously and only in rare cases where no cognizable offence is disclosed.
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 court emphasized the need for strong suspicion of the accused's guilt at the stage of framing charges and the requirement of exceptional circumstances to quash a charge or FIR.
Quashing of FIR should be an exception and rarity, and the court cannot inquire into the reliability or genuineness of the allegations in the FIR.
High Court's jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is to be exercised sparingly, focusing on whether allegations disclose a cognizable offence without resolving the merits.
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.