Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Swarana Kanta Sharma, J.
Sheetal Sharma & Anr. - Appellants
Versus
State NCT of Delhi - Respondent
Cr.M.C. 6460 of 2023
Decided On : 06-09-2023
FIR Quashing - Cheating - IPC 419/420/468/471 - The court discussed the principles governing quashing of FIRs as laid down in Bhajan Lal and Neeharika Infrastructure cases. It emphasized the need for sparing exercise of power to quash FIRs and the requirement for specific allegations to justify investigation. The court also highlighted the caution against interfering with ongoing investigations and the need for exceptional circumstances to quash FIRs.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners were accused of cheating the general public by offering dealerships of various companies in exchange for a security amount. They were alleged to have impersonated themselves as agents of the complainant company and induced innocent persons to enter into dealership agreements.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the allegations against the petitioners were specific and not inherently improbable, and that the investigation was still pending. It concluded that there were no exceptional circumstances to warrant quashing the FIR at the present stage.
Issues: The issues revolved around the petitioners' request to quash the FIR based on their employment status and the application of principles governing quashing of FIRs.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for specific allegations justifying investigation, caution against interfering with ongoing investigations, and the requirement for exceptional circumstances to quash FIRs.
Final Decision: The petition seeking quashing of the FIR was dismissed, and the court clarified that its observations had no bearing on the merits of the case during the trial.
JUDGMENT
Swarana Kanta Sharma, J.) (Oral
1. The instant petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (`Cr.P.C.') has been filed on behalf of the petitioners seeking quashing of FIR bearing no. 275/2020, registered at Police Station Special Cell, Mandir Marg, New Delhi for offence punishable under Sections 419/420/468/471 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (`IPC').
2. Issue notice. Mr. Manoj Pant, learned APP accepts notice on behalf of the State.
3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case as per the FIR dated 03.11.2020, registered on complaint of Indiamart Intermesh Ltd. (`complainant company') are that the petitioners herein along with several other unknown accused persons had cheated and had duped general public by offering dealerships of complainant company and various other companies in lieu of depositing a security amount. The petitioners in collusion with other accused persons had impersonated themselves as agents of Complainant Company by using complainant company's logos and trademarks, false identity cards, fake e-mail addresses and had forged documents bearing trademarks and logos of Complainant Company in order to deceive innocent persons. The complainant company had received three public complaints stating that an offer for dealership by complainant company has been made to the complainants thereof and that accused persons had contacted them and had sent business proposals, fake identity cards and forged dealership agreements bearing logos of complainant company. Thereafter, upon registration of present FIR, on 18.11.2020, petitioner no. 1 was arrested, and petitioner no. 2 was arrested on 09.04.2021. The chargesheet was filed on 16.06.2022. The learned Trial Court had granted bail to petitioner no. 1 vide order dated 14.01.2021on the ground of her medical condition however, proceedings under Section 82 of Cr.P.C were initiated against petitioner no. 2, and he was apprehended in a separate FIR bearing no. 139/2019 registered under Sections 8/21 of NDPS Act.
4. Learned Counsel for the petitioners states that the petitioners were only employees of the company of which one Mr. Sunny Khatri is the owner. He also states that there is nothing on record to connect petitioners/accused persons with the offence and perusal of material on record reveal that the case is covered under State of Haryana & Ors vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal & Ors., 1992 SCC (Cri) 426 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down guidelines for quashing of FIR and with Niranjan Kaur vs New Delhi Hotels Ltd. And Ors., AIR 1988 Delhi 332 and State Bank of India (Successor To ... vs Shyama Devi, AIR 1978 SC1263 wherein application of vicarious liability is dealt with.
5. Learned APP for the State, on the other hand, submits that the case is still pending against the petitioner/accused. It is stated that there are specific roles attributed to petitioners herein. He also draws attention of this Court to page no. 56, para no. 18-B and C of the chargesheet, which reads as under:
"Mohit Sharma: The accused is master mind of this crime. Mohit Soni is the person who dupes innocent people in the name of various companies including Indiamart Ltd., N. P Bazar (Naaptol Bazar), Naaptol India Shopping, Snap Deal, India Snapdeal, Herbal Health Care, Global Telemart etc. in the name of selling their franchise. He got issued 30 phone numbers from Vodafone in the name of M/s Fairdeals to call potential victims. Proprietor of M/s Fairdeals is Sunny Khatri. All these phones are to be recovered from him. From the data extracted from the mobile of accused, it has been revealed that accused cheated more than 100 of innocent persons from different parts of India.
Sheetal Sharma: Sheetal Sharma is the person who duping innocent people in the name various companies including lndiamart Ltd. N 1 Bazar (Naaptol Bazar), Naaptol India Shopping, Snap Deal. India Snapdeal, Herbal Health Care, Global Telemart etc. in the name of selling their franchise. That mobile number which were used
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....
High Courts may quash FIRs under Section 482 CrPC only in exceptional circumstances, with a prima facie case against accused warranting investigation.
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 accused company had dishonestly induced the complainant to deliver property, constituting an offence under Section 420 IPC. The principles for quashing of FIR as laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Cou....
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 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.
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.
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....
Exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 of the CrPC for quashing an FIR should be sparingly and carefully exercised, and the court cannot examine disputed questions of fact at this stage.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
