A Magistrate must register an FIR if a complaint prima facie discloses a cognizable offence, while also ensuring the legitimacy of the complaint and considering preliminary reports during investigation assessment.

JUDGMENT

Yogesh Khanna, J. This petition is filed with the following prayers:

a) Call for the records of the case titled- "MGF Developments Ltd. vs State & Ors.", bearing Crl. Rev. 171/2021 from the court of Sh. Dharmender Rana, Ld. ASJ, New Delhi, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi

b) Quash and set aside the impugned order dated 23.11.2021, passed by the court of Sh. Dharmender Rana, Ld. ASJ in Crl. Rev. 171/2021;

c) Call for the records of case titled "EMAAR India Limited vs. Shravan Gupta and Ors." bearing CC No. 280/2021, from the court of Dr. Pankaj Sharma, Ld. CMM, Patiala House District Courts, New Delhi;

d) Quash and set aside the order dated 16.04.2021 passed by the court of Dr. Pankaj Sharma, Ld. CMM, Patiala House District Courts, New Delhi, in case titled "EMAAR India Limited vs. Shravan Gupta and Ors." bearing CC No. 280/2021, and all the consequential proceedings emanating therefrom including the FIR so registered, if any;

2. The main grievance of the learned senior counsel for the petitioner is on 01.02.2021 a complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. was received by the learned MM upon which he called for an action taken report (ATR) from PS EOW, Mandir Marg. The said report was filed by the Investigating Officer before the learned MM alleging a) no evidence surfaced to establish culpability; b) the matter being pending before the NCLT; c) these are intra company post de-merger disputes and d) the allegations are within the domain of Companies Act.

3. It is alleged none of these facts (a) to (d) find mention either in the order dated 16.04.2021 passed in CC No.280/2021 and/or in the impugned judgment dated 23.11.2021 passed by learned Additional Session's Judge in CRL.REV.P.25/2021.

4. It is the grievance of the learned senior counsel for the petitioner the learned MM ought not to have proceeded without considering ATR. The revisional Court was also under an obligation to look into the ATR since the complaint was decade old. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner submitted the law laid down was ignored by the learned MM.

5. Reliance was placed on Krishna Lal Chawla & Ors. vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr., (2021) 5 SCC 435, where on delay of five years in lodging the complaint, the Court held as under:

"15. The sum of the above circumstances and precedents leads us to what we see as an inevitable conclusion. That Respondent No. 2's institution of the fresh complaint case in 2018 under Section 200 CrPC was a concerted effort to mislead the Magistrate with the oblique motive of harassing the Appellants with a frivolous and vexatious case against them. That the same was a counter-blast to the charge sheet dated 17.09.2017 filed against Respondent No. 2 and his wife in the case registered by the Appellant. The history of illwill and malice between the parties leads further credence to Respondent No.2's motivations for tying up the Appellants in frivolous and harrowing criminal litigation, long years after the alleged incident. Respondent No.2's conduct in filing a delayed complaint case, suppressing material facts, and utilising fresh proceedings to materially improve on his earlier version, in totality, amounts to gross abuse of the process of court.

19. xxxxxxx Thus, it is clear that, on receipt of a private complaint, the Magistrate must first, scrutinise it to examine if the allegations made in the private complaint, inter alia, smack of an instance of frivolous litigation; and second, examine and elicit the material that supports the case of the complainant.

6. In Lalita Kumari vs. Government of Uttar Pradesh and Others, (2014) 2 SCC 1, the Court held as under:

"120.6. As to what type and in which cases preliminary inquiry is to be conducted will depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. The category of cases in which preliminary inquiry may be made are as under:

a) to d) xxx

e) Cases where there is abnormal delay/laches in initiating criminal prosecution, for example, over 3 months delay i