PRAMOD GOYAL Vs. STATE & ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has preferred the present writ petition to seek the writ of certiorari quashing the FIR No. 303/2014 dated 21.05.2014 registered at Police Station - Preet Vihar under Sec. 406/506/323/341/34 IPC. The petitioner also seeks the quashing and setting aside of the order dated 29.04.2014 passed in CC No. 26/2014 passed by Sh. S.P. Laler, MM, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi titled as Ujala Cements Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Pramod Goyal and Another. The aforesaid FIR came to be registered on account of the impugned order dated 29.04.2014 passed by the learned MM. The complainant in the present case is Rajender Prasad Goyal.

(2.) The allegations against the petitioner/accused which are narrated in the FIR in question, insofar as they are relevant, read as follows:

(3.) The submission of learned senior counsel for the petitioner Mr. Ravi Gupta is that the perusal of the FIR, as extracted above, itself shows that there are civil litigation's pending between the petitioner and the complainant Rajender Prasad Goyal. Mr. Gupta points out that accused No. 1 is the nephew of the complainant, and accused No.2 is the maternal uncle of accused No. 1. After demise of the father of the petitioner late Sh. Shyam Sunder Goyal, family disputes have erupted between the parties, in respect whereof civil litigation's are pending. Mr. Gupta submits that the FIR in question is nothing but a mala fide attempt on the part of the complainant to abuse the process of law with a view to put pressure upon and harass the petitioners. Mr. Gupta submits that even if the allegations contained in the FIR are assumed to correct and they are taken at their face value, the offences alleged against the petitioners are not made out. He further submits that there is gross delay in making the first complaint by the complainant which was made, firstly, on 30.0/2013, whereas the offences were allegedly committed on 01.07.2013 and 09.08.2013. Mr. Gupta submits that there is no satisfactory explanation furnished by the complainant for the delay of 3 months from the alleged commission of the first offence under Sec. 4057 406 IPC, and a delay of nearly 7 weeks from the alleged commission of the other offences by the accused. Mr. Gupta submits that the filing of the complaint on 30.09.2013 is clearly an afterthought and the same is a manufactured complaint having no basis whatsoever.