The withdrawal of a complaint does not bar the registration of an FIR if the allegations disclose a cognizable offence, allowing for further investigation.

JUDGMENT

AMIT SHARMA, J.

1. The present writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter, ‘ Cr.P.C .’) and seeks the quashing of FIR No. 273/2016 under Section s 420 /406/506/120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter, ‘ IPC ’) registered at P.S. Chittaranjan Park, Delhi and the proceedings emanating therefrom.

BACKGROUND

2. A complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C . and an application under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C . was filed at the instance of Sh. Vishal Diwan (‘Complainant/Respondent No.2’) on 23rd July, 2016 before the Ld. CMM, Saket Courts, Delhi against Petitioner No. 2, Varun Kalra.

3. On 27th September, 2016, the aforesaid application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C . was withdrawn by Respondent No. 2. Subsequently, the ld. Metropolitan Magistrate vide order dated 09th November 2016 recorded that the abovementioned complaint was also dismissed as withdrawn at the instance of Respondent No. 2.

4. FIR No. 273/2016, which is the subject matter of the present case was registered at the instance of Respondent No. 2, Sh. Vishal Diwan at P.S. Chittaranjan Park on 18th October, 2016 under Section s 420 /406/506 IPC . The allegations made in the FIR are set out as under:

i. It is alleged by Respondent No. 2 that the Petitioners were well acquainted to him for more than 10 years, and claimed themselves to be the Directors of SPL Marketing Private Limited. Sometime in April 2014, Varun Kalra (Petitioner No. 2) had approached him to invest money in his company for the purpose of starting a new business venture of importing cooling towers and its components.

ii. It is alleged that accused/Petitioner No. 2 induced Respondent No. 2 to firstly pay Rs. 10 lakhs by way of cash on 10th June, 2014. Later, on 04th August, 2014, Petitioner No. 2 approached him again seeking the payment of some more amount, and, accordingly, Respondent No. 2 paid an additional sum of Rs. 9 lakhs. The payment of Rs. 9 lakhs were paid by way of Rs. 8 lakhs in cash and Rs. 1 lakh by way of Cheque bearing No. 0000012 dated 05th August 2014. In this regard, Petitioner No. 2 brought pre-printed documents as a “loan agreement” dated 04th August 2014 and “promissory note” dated 04th August 2014 on which he had signed and affixed his thumb impressions.

iii. It was further alleged that Respondent No. 2 paid another sum of Rs. 2 lakhs by way of Cheque No. 0291721 dated 16th December, 2014 which was transferred in the account of Petitioner No. 2 bearing Account no. 16621000009250. Thus, a total sum of Rs. 21 lakhs were paid by the Complainant to Petitioner No. 2.

iv. Further, the Complainant alleged that when he demanded from Petitioner No. 2 to return the amounts, paid by him, Petitioner No. 2 transferred a sum of Rs. 2.5 lakhs stating it to be share/return/entitlement over the investment made by Respondent No. 2. Subsequently, two cheques of Rs. 9 lakhs and Rs. 10 lakhs, bearing Nos. 000012 and 000017 respectively drawn on A/c No. 16621930003106, HDFC Bank Ltd., N-13, Kalkaji Branch, New Delhi were given to Respondent No. 2 towards discharge of the liability against the principal amount of Rs. 19 Lakhs paid by Respondent No. 2.

v. It is stated that the aforementioned cheques were post-dated and payable in December 2015. Cheque No. 000012 was deposited on 3rd December, 2015 and Cheque No. 000017 was deposited in bank on 29th January, 2016 by Respondent No. 2. Once the cheques were presented in the bank, they were dishonoured by the banker of the accused/Petitioner for the reason of “drawer signature differs/AUTH TO OPERATE A/C not reached.”

vi. It is alleged that the cheques were presented by Petitioner No. 2 with different signatures to the Complainant intentionally, knowing that the cheques would not be cleared by the bank due to signatures being contrary to the approved signatures and neither did the concerned bank account had sufficient balance for the cheques to be cle