SUBHASH MANCHANDA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973(Cr.P.C. in short) the petitioner challenges the correctness and legality of the order dated 24 th May, 2010 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistate in a complaint case filed by Respondent no. 2 herein against the petitioner and many others, including some Companies and their Directors, for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 383/415/417/419/420/463/466/ 467/468 /469/471/503/511/120-B of the Indian Penal Code(IPC in short). By the impugned order the learned Metropolitan Magistrate allowed the application of the respondent no.2 complainant under Section 156(3) Cr. P.C. and directed the police to register an FIR after coming to the conclusion that the complaint of the respondent no.2, prima facie, disclosed commission of offence of forgery. In compliance of the said direction of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate FIR No. 57/2010 was registered at Kamla Nagar police station on 24-05-2010 under Sections 420/468/471 IPC.

(2.) Feeling aggrieved by the afore-said order of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate and registration of the FIR the petitioner herein filed the present petition.

(3.) The only point urged before this Court by Ms. Jyoti Singh, learned senior counsel for the petitioner, was that the impugned order dated 24-05-2010 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate directing registration of the FIR in exercise of his powers under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. was in complete violation of various judgments of this Court laying down as to under what circumstances an order under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. should be passed when a complaint under Section 200 is filed by someone. In this regard learned senior counsel placed reliance upon a judgment of a Single Judge Bench of this Court in "Subhkaran Luharuka & Anr. vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) & Anr., 2010 170 DLT 516". It was also submitted that the respondent no.2, who is a sales tax and income tax consultant and was handling cases of the petitioner and other clients, who were also sought to be prosecuted, and was aware of all their business activities, had filed the complaint only as a counter blast to various criminal cases registered against him and his father, who is also a taxation consultant, by their ex-clients, including the petitioner herein, for the commission of offences of cheating and forgery of documents etc. It was submitted that the respondent no.2 and his father had been filing forged applications under the Right to Information Act purporting to be on behalf of his clients to gather certain confidential informations and then had been black-mailing them to extort money and similarly the complainant had been blackmailing Government officials also. Learned senior counsel also contended that the respondent no.2 had obtained the direction from the Court below for the registration of FIR by playing fraud upon the Court by pacing on record a copy of complaint dated 8 th February,2010 in compliance of the direction of the Magistrate in order to show that before approaching the Court under Section 200 Cr.P.C. with an application under Section 156(3) he had lodged a complaint with the police while no such complaint was lodged and in fact there was not even an averment to that effect either in the complaint or in the application under Section 156(3). It was also submitted that even as per his own showing the complaint was filed on 8 th February,2010 and his so-called complaint to the police was also dated 8 th February,2010 which showed that the complaint had been filed in Court by the complainant without approaching the police first and in fact the police had claimed before this Court in its status report dated 10.10.2012 that the complaint dated 08.02.2010 was received by the police on 25 th February, 2010 i.e. much after the filing of the complaint and application under Section 156(3) in Court.