IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
RAVINDRA MAITHANI, J.
M/S Samia International Builders Pvt. Ltd. and Another - Petitioners
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and Others - Respondents
Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 1372 of 2023
Decided On : 17-10-2023
Mandamus - Real Estate Development - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Section 154 - Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 - The court discussed the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, particularly Section 154, and the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, in relation to lodging of FIRs against the petitioners. The court highlighted the mandatory nature of registering an FIR in cases of cognizable offences and the limitations on the police's power to avoid registering an FIR if a cognizable offence is disclosed. The court also emphasized that blanket directions cannot be issued to the police for not lodging FIRs, particularly in cases where a civil dispute may also have an element of criminality.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, developers of a real estate project, sought relief from the court to prevent the registration of any FIR against them or their company by proposed buyers of land/flats from their project. They claimed that the police were lodging FIRs against them without valid reasons, tarnishing their reputation.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that there was no merit in the petition and dismissed it at the stage of admission itself.
Issues: The main issue was whether the court should issue a writ of mandamus to prevent the registration of FIRs against the petitioners by proposed buyers of their real estate project.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the mandatory nature of registering an FIR in cases of cognizable offences and the limitations on the police's power to avoid registering an FIR if a cognizable offence is disclosed. It also highlighted that blanket directions cannot be issued to the police for not lodging FIRs, particularly in cases where a civil dispute may also have an element of criminality.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed in limine.
JUDGMENT :
Ravindra Maithani, J.
By means of the instant petition, the petitioners seek the following reliefs:-
II. To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to ask the informant, if any, who comes to lodge an FIR against the petitioners or against the employees or officers of the company of the petitioner no.1 which is being run in the name and style of “M/s Samiah International Builders Pvt. Ltd.” now known as “M/s Samiah International Builders Limited: with regard to its project at “Samiah Lake City” Kashipur Road, Rudrapur, to settle his grievance either before the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Authority Dehradun or put his grievance before the District Legal Service Authority Udham Singh Nagar at Rudrapur for mediation and conciliation.
III. To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to halt the investigation in all the matters which have been registered against the petitioners or against the employees of the petitioners’ company M/s SAmiah International Builders Pvt. Ltd. now know as “Saia International Builders Ltd”, Kashipur Road, Rudrapur, with regard to the project known as “Samiah Lake City”, Rudrapur, Udham Singh Nagar.
IV. Any other relief which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper, may kindly be awarded in favour of the petitioner.”
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
3. According to the petitioners, they are developers and work under the name and style of M/S Samia International Builders Pvt. Ltd. (“the developers”). The developers have sanctioned a project known as Samia Lake City, wherein both 4500 flats and plots are to be sold. 1136 plots/flats have already been handed over to the purchasers out of 1812 plots/flats that has been booked. Still an amount of Rs.5,367/- Lacks is to be recovered from the persons, who have booked their plots/flats. The petitioners have grievance that the police is not exercising the power lawfully and lodging FIR after FIR against the developers without any valid reasons.
4. It is the case of the petitioners that earlier various FIRs were lodged against the petitioners in which either anticipatory bail was granted; or compromised; or protection was granted by this Court. The details are as follows:-
| S.N. | Informant | FIR No. | Order of Hon’ble Court |
| 1. | Ghanshyam Dutt Chaturvedi | 255/2023 | Compromised (WPCRL 1724/2023) |
| 2. | Mohd. Shahzad Khan | 215/2023 | Interim anticipatory bail has been granted by the Hon’ble Court (ABA No.312/2023) |
| 3. | Smt. Firdous Khan | 216/2023 | Interim anticipatory bail has been granted by the Hon’ble Court (ABA No.329/2023) |
| 4. | Ms. Farheen Khan | 217/2023 | Interim anticipatory bail has been granted by the Hon’ble Court (ABA No.427/2023) |
| 5. | Fardeen Khan | 218/2023 | Interim anticipatory bail has been granted by the Hon’ble Court (ABA No.313/2023) |
| 6. | Arham Khan | 221/2023 | Interim anticipatory bail has been granted by the Hon’ble Court in Anticipatory bail application (ABA No.325/2023) An order of protection from coercive steps has also granted in the writ petition. (WPCRL No.1145 of 2023). |
| 7. | Parvej Alam | 424/2023 | An order of protection from coercive steps has been granted in the writ petition (WPCRL No.1099 of 2023). |
| 8. | Rajes | ||
The mandatory nature of registering an FIR in cases of cognizable offences and the limitations on the police's power to avoid registering an FIR if a cognizable offence is disclosed.
The court established that FIRs should not be registered for civil disputes and emphasized the importance of distinguishing between civil and criminal matters to prevent abuse of the legal process.
FIR registration mandatory for cognizable offences unless exceptional delay over 3 months without explanation permits preliminary inquiry per Lalita Kumari; 12-year laches in forgery complaint justif....
The main legal point established is the mandatory registration of FIR if the information discloses a cognizable offence and the need for a preliminary inquiry in certain cases. The court emphasized t....
The appropriate remedy for non-registration of FIR is to take recourse under other provisions of the CrPC, not seeking relief under Article 226.
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.