DEEPAK GARG Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition the Petitioner seeks quashing of order dated 24th January, 2009 directing registration of the FIR on an application under Section 156 (3) Code of Criminal Procedure and consequently FIR No. 38/2009 under Sections 406/409/420/467/468/471/120B/506/34 Indian Penal Code registered at PS Najafgarh, Delhi and the proceedings pursuant thereto.

(2.) Learned Counsel for the Petitioner contends that the Complainant initially gave a complaint to DIG, Chandigarh regarding the allegations on which the present FIR has been registered. In the said complaint the name of the Petitioner was not there, and as per the complaint even though the property was situated at Kashmere Gate, Delhi, the transactions were allegedly made at Mani Mazra Chandigarh. Since No. FIR was registered at Chandigarh, the Complainant filed a complaint before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate wherein the allegations set out were that the Complainant for the purpose of business dealing used to stay in Delhi with one of his old friends Shri Azad Singh at his residence at Najafgarh and the negotiations for the purchase of the aforesaid property took place at Najafgarh and payments were made to accused persons by the Complainant on different dates in the presence of Shri Azad Singh. It is contended that the Complainant has resorted to false pleadings and thus the order directing registration of FIR should be set aside by this Court on this ground itself. It is further contended that the learned Metropolitan Magistrate has passed the impugned order under Section 156 (3) after taking cognizance of the complaint as he had called for the affidavit of the parties. This procedure is also in contravention of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gopal Das Sindhi v. State of Assam, 1961 AIR(SC) 986. It is well settled that the Magistrate must call for a status report before directing registration of the FIR however in the present case directions for registration of the FIR were given without even calling for the status report. He took cognizance on a complaint which was based on concealment, as the fact of making a complaint at Chandigarh was not disclosed. Reliance is placed on Surender Kumar Sharma v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi),2008 2 JCC 1362, Majhar @ Papoo and Ors. v. State, 2002 96 DLT 566, S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu (Dead) by L.Rs, v. Jagannath dead through L.Rs., 1994 AIR(SC) 853, Budhan Singh and Ors. v. State (Through NCT of Delhi),2008 2 JCC 1017, Harvinder Singh Khurana and Ors. v. The State (NCT of Delhi) and Anr., 2007 4 JCC 3164.

(3.) Learned Additional Standing Counsel on the other hand contends that the present FIR was registered on the direction of learned Metropolitan Magistrate under Section 156(3) Code of Criminal Procedure In the complaint, the Complainant Sukhmander Singh had alleged that he had been cheated for a sum of Rs. 1.50 crores on the pretext of selling the property bearing Khasra No. 98, Kala Ghat, Kashmiri Gate, Delhi by the Petitioner and his co-accused. The Complainant was induced by accused Kamal Kishore for purchasing the property in question and the same was shown to him in Delhi by Kamal Kishore at the instance of two brokers namely Amarjit Kapoor and Dildar Singh. No. jurisdictional error has been committed by the learned Trial Court by directing registration of the FIR at Delhi since in the complaint it was alleged that the property is situated in Delhi and the Complainant parted with the money at Delhi. Further No. cognizance had been taken by the learned Magistrate as stated by the learned Counsel as there was No. step taken for proceeding as a complaint case and thus the order directing registration of FIR is not bad in law. The impugned order is a speaking order wherein it has been clearly discussed that the investigation involves serious allegations of cheating and fraud of Rs. 1.50 crores and, that the disputed property belongs to the government. Learned Metropolitan Magistrate had stayed the complaint case till the final police report is received under Section 173 Code of Criminal Procedure Even if the Complainant had filed a complaint at Chandigarh No. FIR was registered thereon and thus the Complainant was not barred from filing a complaint before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate at Delhi and hence the petition should be dismissed.