KRISHNANA MANCHANDA Vs. STATE & ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this petition the Petitioner challenges the order dated 10th July, 2009 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate dismissing the application of the Petitioner filed under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. for registration of FIR and granting liberty to the Petitioner to examine herself and thus proceed as a complaint case.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the Petitioner contends that the complaint of the Petitioner was against unknown persons and items were also required to be recovered. Thus, the finding of the learned Trial Court that the offence was within the reach of the Petitioner was incorrect. According to him, in case direction for registration of FIR is not given, the Petitioner will have to undergo a long drawn process, which would be detrimental to her. It is contended that the Police had no power to conduct the preliminary enquiry. Only in cases of property disputes or cheating, forgery etc., the Police could enter into an enquiry and in serious offences like robbery, as alleged by the Petitioner, the Police should register FIR as they are duty bound to do so in terms of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Lalita Kumari V. Govt. of U.P. & Ors. : (2011) 11 SCC 331. Relying on Radha v. State : (179) 2011 DLT 810 it is contended that the legal position is well settled and the Police cannot proceed in the matter without registration of FIR. Relying upon Priya Gupta v. The State, 2007 (2) JCC 1330 it is contended that in a complaint of this nature the SHO is duty bound to register the FIR. In view of the decision in Sunil Mehdiratta Vs. Union of India, (2002) JCC 247, it is stated that the discretion means use of private and independent thought and not just acting in an arbitrary manner. It is further stated that there are bound to be variations in the complaint as no person can give the same facts over and over again and at this stage this Court will not sift and weigh the evidence in exercise of its power under Section 482/483 and should direct registration of FIR.

(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties. Briefly the facts of the case are that there is a dispute between the sons of the Petitioner. The Petitioner, the mother of Respondent No. 2 filed a detailed complaint to the SHO Rajender Nagar, Delhi which was duly received on 18th June, 2008. The complaint is a detailed one wherein she alleges that her husband died in the year 1977 leaving behind three sons Vijay Manchanda, Ashok Manchanda and Rajesh Manchanda. Her elder son Vijay Manchanda started a firm of manufacturing plastic containers and her second son Ashok Manchanda was made a sleeping partner as he was working as a clerk in Centaur hotel. Her third son Rajesh Manchanda started an export firm where also Ashok Manchanda was made a sleeping partner. According to her, she sold her jewellery and flat for the investment in the business and her three sons were doing well. It was decided that Rajesh Manchanda will look after marketing of products, Vijay Manchanda will look after production and Ashok Manchanda will look after accounts and other paper works. According to her, Ashok Manchanda with ill intentions changed partnership deeds making all the three partners as equal partneRs. At the relevant time Ashok and Vijay were living together in a double storey house at New Rajender Nagar. Since Vijay Manchanda and Rajesh Manchanda had faith in Ashok Manchanda, they signed all documents. However, Ashok Manchanda took undue advantage and fabricated books of accounts, forged signatures on the cheques, put dates therein in his own hand -writing and mentioned the figure of Rs. 85 lakhs, notwithstanding that the cheques belonged to the saving bank account of Rajesh Manchanda. Due to the activity of Ashok Manchanda, Rajesh suffered a lot. It is further alleged that Vijay manchanda and Rajesh Manchanda were away on their business tour and in their absence Ashok Manchanda came to see the Petitioner Krishna Manchanda on 4th march, 2011 and asked her to return the original documents relating to different properties owned by the two firms. After Vijay Manchanda and Rajesh Manchanda returned from business tour on or about 8th April, 2008, the Petitioner informed that in their absence Ashok Manchanda had visited her on 4th March, 2008 and threatened her of dire consequences if the original documents were not given to him. It may be noted that in this detailed complaint there is no allegation that on 4th March, 2008 Ashok Manchanda came with the other accused persons and committed robbery at the house of the Petitioner.