HARADHAN BHOWMIK Vs. STATE GOVT OF NCT DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By these three petitions, the petitioners who are brothers seek quashing of FIR No. 157/2015 under Sections 406/420/120B IPC registered at PS Economic Offences Wing on the complaint of respondent No.2.

(2.) Seeking quashing of the above noted FIR and the proceeding pursuant thereto learned counsel for the petitioner contends that even on the face of the allegations in the FIR only a civil dispute is made out, hence no FIR could be registered on the allegations. Further rights of the parties have already been decided in civil proceedings wherein a finding has been arrived at that the petitioners are the registered owners of property No. B-295, Chitranjan Park, New Delhi. Before registering the FIR the investigating agency failed to notice that an application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. filed by the complainant had already been dismissed by the learned Trial Court on 11th May, 2015 and the complainant was directed to lead evidence qua the criminal complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. which the complainant failed to do despite eight adjournments. Further the alleged complainant Ms. Bani Kar filed a civil suit being CS No.420/2014 titled as Bani Kar Bhowmik vs. Tapan Bhowmik claiming her share in the property which suit was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 4th March, 2015. The FIR demonstrates incorrect facts as alleged by the complainant. Further the petitioner Tapan Bhowmik has not been named in the FIR and there is no owner/brother named as Bakul Bhowmik as alleged in the FIR. Ms. Bani Kar is not entitled to the share in the property as the petitioners and their father had severed relations with her. Reliance is placed on the decisions State of Haryana & Ors. vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal & Ors., (1992) AIR SC 604 Rajib Ranjan & Ors. vs. R. Vijay Kumar, (2015) 1 SCC 513 Ram Dilawri & Anr. vs. State of NCT of Delhi in Crl. M.C. No.3115/2011 decided on 29th June, 2015, C.Selvaraju & Ors. vs. State, represented by Special Sub-Inspector of Police decided 4th February, 2015, Thermax Ltd. & Ors. vs. K.M. Johny & Ors., (2011) 13 SCC 412 and Prakash & Ors. vs. Phulavati & Ors., (2016) 2 SCC 36

(3.) Learned Standing Counsel for the State on the other hand contends that the allegations in the FIR clearly constitute the ingredients of offences of cheating and forgery. Thus it cannot be said that the contents of FIR disclose a civil dispute and no cognizable offence is made out. Even after the civil suit filed by the complainant has been dismissed, the complainant is entitled to register a complaint if the allegations disclose commission of cognizable offences. After collection of documents which clearly show that the petitioners misrepresented in the affidavits filed before the L & Do that they were the only three legal heirs and got the property transferred in their name, a charge sheet has already been prepared and is likely to be filed shortly.