W.P.(CRL)/1390/2012 of SHYAM SUNDER SHARMA Vs STATE OF NCT OF DELHI &ORS.

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ W.P.(CRL) 1390/2012

SHYAMSUNDERSHA&MA ..... Petitioner Through: Mr.Anilendra Pandey and Ms.Priya Kashyap, Advs.

versus

STATE OF NCT OF DELID &ORS. . .... Respondents Through: Mr.Rajesh Mahajan, ASC for State-R-1 with SI Manjeet, PS Sagar Pur.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE PRATIBHA RANI

ORDER Ofo 26.09.2012

W.P.(Crl.) 1390/2012 & Crl.M.A. No.17196/2012 (Interim Stay)

1. The petitioner is invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution r/w Section 482 CrPC by making prayer for quashing ofFIR No.l26/2012 under Section 420 IPC, PS Sagar Pur, Delhi.

2. Notice.

3. Mr.Rajesh Mahajan, ASC accepts notice on behalf of State/R-1. 4. Heard. 4. Heard.

5. Perusal of the record shows that the petitioner and respondent No.2 entered into an agreement to sell dated 25.07.2011 for sale of 100 sq.yds. out of the property No.RZ-5C (Out of Khasra No.629) situated in Indira Park, Mangal Bazar Street No.34, Palam Colony, New Delhi ·for total consideration of Rs.30 lacs. As per the agreement to sell (Annexure P-1 ),

sum of Rs.4 lacs was paid by respondent No.2 to the petitioner towards part sale consideration and the remaining amount of Rs.26 lacs was to be paid within 90 days of the execution of the sale agreement. As per the complainant, during this period of 90 days, the petitioner sold this property to some other person and thereby committed the said offence. It is further the case of the complainant that on 03.10.2011 at about 8.00 pm, the petitioner allegedly came to her house and threatened her as well as her husband to return the documents executed earlier in respect of the said property.

6. On the complaint filed by respondent No.2, learned MM, in exercise of powers under Section 156 (3) CrPC, directed to registration of FIR, quashing of which has been filed by the petitioner before this Court.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that it is civil dispute and in exercise of powers under Section 482 CrPC, the Court can quash the FIR registered on the direction of learned MM in complaint case. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon lnder Mohan Goswami & Anr. vs. State of Uttaranchal & Ors. (2007) 12 SCC 1, K.L.E. Society and Ors. Vs. Siddalingesh (2008) 4 sec 541 and Rama Devi vs. State of Bihar & Ors. (2010) 12 sec 273 in support of his submissions.

8. The case law relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner provides the guidelines and the circumstances to be kept in mind by the Court while exercising inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC.

9. In the case State of Orissa vs. Ujjal Kumar Burdhan MANU/Se/021712012 while discussing the case of State of West Bengal and Ors. vs Swapan Kumar Guha and Ors, it was observed that:

'An investigation is carried on for the purpose of gathering

necessary materials for establishing and proving an offence which is disclosed When an offence is disclosed, proper investigation in the interests of justice becomes necessary to collect materials for establishing the offence, and for bringing the offender to book. In the absence of proper investigation in case where an offence is disclosed, the offender may succeed in escaping from the consequences and the offender may go unpunished to the detriment of the cause of justice and the society at large. Justice requires that person who commits an offence has to be brought to book and must be punished for the same. If the Court interferes with the proper investigation in case where an offence has been disclosed, the offence will go unpunished to the serious detriment of the welfare of the society and the cause of the justice suffers. It is on the basis of this principle that the Court normally does not interfere with the investigation of case where an offence has been disclosed ... Whether an offence has been disclosed or not must necessarily depend on the facts and circumstances of each particular case .... If on consideration of the relevant materials, the Court is satisfied that an offence is disclosed, the Court will normally not interfere with the investigation into the offence and will generally allow the investigation into the offence to be completed for collecting materials for proving the offence. '

10. In another case Rajesh Bajaj vs. State of NCT of Delhi & Ors. AIR 1999 SC 1216, it was observed as under:

'9. It is not necessary that complainant should verbatim reproduce in the body of his complaint all the ingredients of the offence he is alleging Nor is it necessary that the complainant should state in so many words that the intention of the accused was dishonest or fraudulent. Splitting up of the definition into different components of the offence to make meticulous scrutiny, whether all the ingredients have been precisely spelled out in the complaint, is not the need at this stage. If factual foundation for the offence has been laid in the complaint the court should not hasten to quash criminal proceedings during investigation stage merely on the premise that one or two ingredients have not been stated with details. For quashing an FIR (a step which is permitted only in extremely rare cases) the information

in the complaint must be so bereft of even the basic facts which are absolutely necessary for making out the offence. In State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (Supra) this Court laid down the premise on which the FIR can be quashed in rare cases. The following observations made in the aforesaid decisions are sound reminder : v. Bhajan Lal (Supra) this Court laid down the premise on which the FIR can be quashed in rare cases. The following observations made in the aforesaid decisions are sound reminder :

We also give note of caution to the effect that the power of quashing criminal proceeding should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases,· that the court will not be justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint and that the extraordinary or inherent powers do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the court to act according to its whim or caprice. '

10. Taking into consideration that the complaint disclosed the alleged commission of offence under Section 420 IPC resulting in direction under Section 156(3) CrPC to register the FIR and investigation is going on in case ,.._ FiWo.126/2012 under Section 420 IPC, PS Sagar Pur, I do not find it to be fit case to quash the FIR. Prayer rejected.

11. Petition is hereby dismissed.

SEPTEMBER 26, 2012 'st'