Back
2018 Supreme(P&H) 3689
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Daya Chaudhary, J.
Karnail Singh And Others - Appellant
Versus
U.T. Chandigarh And Another - Respondent
Criminal Miscellaneous (M) No. 7040 of 2016
Decided On : 07-08-2018
Ramesh Kumar Bamal, Adv., Sukant Gupta, Adv., A.P. Kaushal, Adv.
Accused have no right to be heard before registration of the FIR or at the stage of investigation.
Headnote:
Section 482 Cr.P.C. - Setting aside impugned orders - Fraud, Cheating, and Forgery - Sections 420/120-B IPC - Section 200 and 202 Cr.P.C.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners sought to set aside orders for registration of FIR against them for fraud and cheating in a property transaction. The complainant alleged non-disclosure of mortgage and subsequent sale of the property.
Finding of the Court:
The court deliberated on the nature of the orders, the discretion of the Magistrate to issue process, and the rights of the accused at the pre-registration stage. It held that the accused have no right to be heard before registration of the FIR or at the stage of investigation.
Issues: The court considered whether the direction for registration of the FIR was interlocutory or final, and whether the petitioners were entitled to notice and hearing before the registration of the FIR.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the accused have no right to be heard before registration of the FIR or at the stage of investigation, and that the order under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. is in the nature of an administrative direction to the police.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed as the court found no merit in the arguments advanced by the petitioners.
JUDGMENT
Daya Chaudhary, J. - The petitioners have filed the present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for setting aside impugned orders dated 9.9.2015 (Annexure P5) passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chandigarh in Criminal Revision No. 136 of 2015 and dated 3.2.2016 (Annexure P-6) passed in complaint case No. 6754 of 2014 by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Chandigarh, whereby, a direction has been issued to SHO concerned to register FIR and investigate into the matter and to register an FIR against the petitioners. A further prayer has also been made for quashing of said FIR No. 24 dated 6.2.2016 registered under Sections 420/120-B IPC at Police Station, Sector 36, Chandigarh and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom.
2. Briefly, the facts of the case as made out in the present petition are that petitioner No.2-Pargan Singh and petitioner No.4-Avtar Singh Saini purchased a residential house No. 77 measuring 200 Sq. Yards situated within the red line/abadi deh of Village Kajehri, U.T., Chandigarh vide sale deed dated 2.7.2014 from one Balwinder Singh. Said land was mortgaged by Balwinder Singh with State Bank of Patiala but at the time of purchasing by petitioner No.2, this fact was not disclosed and a fraud was played with him by said Balwinder Singh. After purchasing of the said property, petitioner No.2 applied for loan from Punjab National Bank, which was sanctioned after mortgaging of the said property. Subsequently the said property was sold to respondent No.2-Mahipal. Petitioner No.2 repaid the loan amount and property became free from all encumbrances regarding the lien of Punjab National Bank. Respondent No.2 filed complaints before the Police Station Sector-34 and Section-19, Chandigarh and both the complaints were filed after investigation. It was found that no fraud was played with respondent No.2. Thereafter respondent No.2 (complainant) filed a complaint before Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Chandigarh and a report from Police Station Sector 34, Chandigarh was called vide order dated 9.2.2015 by learned Magistrate. The report was submitted and the petitioners were found innocent. The Magistrate after perusal of the documents and report submitted by the Police authority treated the complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and the case was fixed for preliminary evidence of the complainant vide order dated 5.6.2015, which was challenged by respondent No.2 by way of filing revision petition before learned Sessions Judge, Chandigarh. The order passed by the Magistrate was set aside and case was remitted to learned Magistrate for hearing on merits and to pass order afresh vide order dated 9.9.2015. Thereafter the Magistrate vide its order dated 3.2.2016 ordered for registration of the FIR against the petitioners. Orders dated 9.9.2015 and 3.2.2016 are subject matter of challenge in the present petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has challenged the aforesaid orders mainly on two grounds i.e. i) order passed by the Magistrate was interlocutory and no revision was maintainable, ii) petitioners were not issued any notice, whereas before passing of the impugned order, they were not heard and no opportunity of being heard was afforded to them. Learned counsel for the petitioners has also relied upon the judgments of Hon'ble the Apex Court in the cases of Madhao and another Vs. State of Maharashtra and another , (2013) 2 RCR(Criminal) 975, Girish Kumar Suneja Vs. CBI , (2017) 3 RCR(Criminal) 665, Raghu Raj Singh Rousha Vs. M/s. Shivam Sundaram Promoters (P) L and another , (2009) 1 RCR(Criminal) 531, of this Court in the cases of Rohit Uppal Vs. State of Punjab and Others , (2017) 2 RCR(Criminal) 310, Neelam Vs. State of Haryana and another , (2009) 2 RCR(Criminal) 360, of Delhi High Court in the cases of Dr. V.P. Sharma Vs. The State (NCT of Delhi) and Others , (2010) 6 RCR(Criminal) 2103, Gopal Krishan Dua Vs. State , (2009) 3 RCR(Criminal) 102, of Allahabad High Court in the cases of Chandrapal Vs.
