ALKA GUPTA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has filed the petitions under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to set aside a common order dated 17.01.2013 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi in Crl.Revision Petitions No. 129, 130 and 131 of 2012; to direct the police authorities to register the complaints as FIRs and conduct investigation. I have considered the submissions of the parties and have examined the record. It reveals that the petitioner herein filed three Complaint Cases No.132/1, 133/1 & 134/1 against the respondents for committing offences punishable under Sections 415/420/463/465/468/471/477(A) read with Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. Applications under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. were also filed for issuing appropriate directions for registration of FIRs and for conducting investigation through police. The petitioner averred in Complaint Case No. 132/2001 that she and Sanjay Gupta (Respondent No.2 herein) were shareholders in 'Sampat Real Estate Private Ltd.'. They both were Directors in the said company. The company had no other business apart from the only asset consisting of property situated at 47, Amrita Shergil Marg, New Delhi and paltry cash in the Bank. She further averred that recently she, after going through electronic records available with the Registrar of the Companies on website, learnt that she was neither a shareholder nor a Director in the said company. Annual returns for the period from 30.09.2004 to 30.09.2010 revealed that shares held by her were transferred in the name Sanjay Gupta(Respondent No.2), Kamlesh Gupta (Respondent No.3) and her father-in-law. She claimed that she never executed any instrument of transfer like a share transfer in favour of respondents No.2 & 3 or submitted resignation as Director of the said company. She alleged that the respondents pursuant to criminal conspiracy illegally and dishonestly removed her from the post of Director by forging documents and falsifying accounts. They forged share transfer forms to transfer the shares in their names.

(2.) BY an order dated 02.05.2012, the learned Metropolitan Magistrate after considering the rival contentions of the parties and relying upon the judgments cited therein declined to give directions under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. to the police to investigate the case and instead took cognizance himself. The complainant was given an opportunity to prove her contentions by leading evidence and the case was adjourned for recording her statement and that of her witnesses. The petitioner went in revision and by the impugned order dated 17.01.2013 the learned Additional Sessions Judge did not accept it and with detailed reasons dismissed the revision petitions.

(3.) REMEDY under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. is a discretionary one as the provision proceeds with the word 'may'. The Magistrate is required to exercise his mind while doing so and pass orders only if he is satisfied that the information reveals commission of cognizable offence/ offences and also about necessity of police investigation for digging out of evidence neither in possession of the complainant nor can be procured without the assistance of the police. The complainant, as a matter of right, cannot insist that the complaint case filed by him/ her should be directed in every eventuality to the police for investigation. In 'Mohd. Salim vs. State' (Crl.M.C. 3601/2009) decided on 10.03.2010, this Court held :