In a similar case of G. Sri Hari v. Nandkishore Lahoti and another, 2003 Crl. L.J.
643, two cases were filed in respect of same transaction, i.e., one for offence under
Section 420 of IPC and another under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and it
was held that the proper course would be to club both the cases together and not to quash
the criminal complaint/case proceedings.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Judgment pronounced on : December 12, 2008
(1) Crl. M.C. No. 570-73/2006
Rajeev Kumar Suri and Others ...
Versus
State of NCT of Delhi
Read original judgment here;click here
SUNIL GAUR, J.
1. With the consent of parties, the above titled seven petitions have been heard
together and are being disposed of together by this common order.
2. The bare facts which needs to be noticed are that five criminal complaints under
Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act were filed against one Rajeev Kumar Suri and
his wife Smt. Vivian Suri regarding dishonouring of five cheques of Rs.10 lacs, Rs.4.25
lacs, Rs.2 lacs, Rs.2 lacs and Rs.1.5 lacs respectively, and these five criminal complaints
were lodged by Rakesh Aggarwal, his wife Saroj Aggarwal, Ishwar Chand and S.K.
Kohli.
3. Mr. Rajeev Kumar Suri and his wife Smt. Vivian Suri are the Petitioners in Crl.
M.C. No. 1179/2007, 1180/2007, 1186/2007, 1187/2007 and 1194/2007 and the prayer
made by them in the above said five petitions is that the proceedings initiated against
them under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act be stayed till the completion of
investigation in FIR No. 1256/06, under Section 120- B/34/420/467/506 of the IPC,
Police Station Paschim Vihar, New Delhi, which has been lodged by Petitioner Rajeev
Kumar Suri and his wife against aforesaid S.K. Kohli, Rakesh Kumar Aggarwal, Saroj
Aggarwal, Dinesh Chand, Ishwar Chand Mittal, Harish Kumar, Rajinder Singh and
Ashok Khurana. It is a matter of record that aforesaid S.K. Kohli, Rakesh Kumar
Aggarwal, Saroj Aggarwal and Ishwar Chand Mittal are the complainants of complaints
under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act against Petitioner Rajeev Kumar Suri
and his wife Vivian Suri.
4. In Crl. Misc. (M) No. 1892/2007, filed by Rakesh Aggarwal and Saroj Aggarwal,
quashing of aforesaid FIR No.1256/06 under Section 120-B/34/420/467/506 of the IPC,
Police Station Paschim Vihar, New Delhi, registered at the instance of Rajeev Kumar
Suri and his mother Smt. Vimla Suri, has been sought on the ground that it is a counter
blast to the filing of criminal complaints against Rajeev Kumar Suri and his wife Vivian
Suri.
5. In Crl. M.C. No. 570-73/2006, Rajeev Kumar Suri, his mother Smt. Vimla Suri
and his son Puneet Suri, alongwith one Sachin Anand @ Sonu have sought quashing of
FIR No.1166/2005 under Section 415/420/506/511/323/120-B/34 of the IPC, registered
at Police Station Paschim Vihar, at the instance of Rakesh Aggarwal and Saroj Aggarwal
on the ground that the dispute between the parties are primarily of civil nature and
initiation of criminal process is an abuse of process of the Court. It is also asserted that
the ingredients of the offence of cheating are not made out. Reliance has been placed
upon the case of Ajay Mitra vs. State of M.P. and Others, 2003 SCC (Crl.) 703 and on the
case of Ashok Chaturvedi and Others vs. Shitul H. Chanchani and Another, 1998 SCC
(Crl.) 1704.
6. The initial version of Rakesh Kumar Aggarwal, which finds mention in the FIR
No. 1166/05 is as follows:- In May 2004, Suris i.e. Petitioner No.1 and 2 approached
Respondent No. 2 for loan as they wanted to purchase a big lot of vehicles from
Insurance Company and gave temptation to him to pay interest @ 24% p.a., to return loan
within six months and if not paid to pay penalty @ Rs.10,000/- p.m. alongwith interest @
36% p.a. Getting induced Rakesh Aggarwal Respondent No. 2 paid Ten Lacs against
agreement for mortgage and receipt. Since on seeing the agreement and title document of
mortgaged property J-191, RBI Colony, Paschim Vihar, New Delhi, it revealed Petitioner
No. 4 Smt. Vimla mother of Petitioner No. 1 was owner, she also signed agreement.
Initially Petitioner No. 1 and 2 paid interest @ 24% p.a. for six months and sought further
time for repayment. In January 2005 Petitioner No.2 and 3 took Rs.4.25 lacs from
Respondent No. 2 and 3 for selling them a Qualis at a cheaper rate and also to sell the
same by getting handsome profit thereon. Later on it was revealed that the vehicle shown
was already sold. Later on Cheque No.059966 dated 8.3.2005 for Rs.4.25 lacs in favour
of Respondent No. 3 and cheque No.059967 dated 19.3.2005 for ten lacs in favour of
Respondent No. 2 for return of aforesaid money were given by Petitioner No. 1. The
cheques when presented were dishonoured for reasons Account closed. The Petitioner
No. 1 to 3 in conspiracy with each other with common object induced Respondent No. 2
and 3 to part with Rs.4.25 lacs on the pretext of selling already sold Qualis car at cheaper
rate and then all Petitioners in conspiracy with each other through Petitioner No.1 issued
cheques of account which had already been closed, which discloses mala fide intention
and as such all Petitioners committed offence of cheating Respondent No. 2 and 3 as
neither the vehicle was delivered nor the money taken was returned. The accused persons
on 11.6.2005 alongwith 2-3 persons came to the home of Respondent No. 2 and 3 and
threatened to eliminate them. As such committed offences u/s 415, 420, 506, 323, 34,
120-B of IPC.
7. The counter version of Rajeev Kumar Suri as finds mention in FIR No.
1256/2006, is as under:- Mr. Rajeev Kumar Suri (hereinafter referred to as Petitioner No.
1) has been dealing in sale and purchase of old cars since 1998 under the name and style
Romy Motorsand has a good reputation in the said field. Sh. S.K. Kohli, accused No.1
herein had business dealing with Petitioner No. 1 and also used to look after his day to
day business till February 2005. The Petitioner No. 1 resorting good faith in S.K.Kohli
i.e. accused No.1 used to give him blank signed cheques of different banks besides other
papers for day to day business. However, accused No.2 herein who is a property dealer in
Uttam Nagar defrauded the Petitioner No. 1 and in breach of trust, misused the cheques
which he was holding in trust. This fact came to the knowledge of Petitioner No. 1 in
middle of 2005 when he started receiving notice under Section 138 of Negotiable
Instruments Act from different persons including Shri Rakesh Kumar Aggarwal, Smt.
Saroj Aggarwal w/o Sh. Rakesh Kumar Aggarwal, Shri Dinesh Chand s/o Sh. Jhande Lai,
Sh. Ishwar Chand Mittal s/o Shri Ramesh Chand, Shri Harish Kunwar s/o Sh. Rajinder
Singh r/o D-510, Dauba Colony, NIT Faridabad i.e., accused 2 to 6. All the above said
notices contained an almost similar and identical concocted story of either having
business dealing or that on seeing the car or on asking for arranging the car, the alleged
persons without taking delivery of the vehicle or even without seeing the vehicle, made
payment thereof and thereafter in lieu of that Petitioner No. 1 issued cheques, which on
presentation were dishonoured. The story in each of the notice on the face of it is
unbelievable. Some of the persons on whose behalf the petitioner No.1 received notices
had no business dealing at any stage with him and he was never even seen their faces.
The serial number of the cheques and the story put in each of the aforesaid notices clearly
show that a fraud has been committed by accused No.1 in collusion with accused No.2 to
8 to defraud, harass, blackmail and deceive the petitioner No.1 and his family. In this
regard as back as in July 2005 petitioner No. 1 had lodged a report a report against
accused No.1 and 2 but no action seems to have been taken so far. The entire stories
concocted by the above said persons are ulterior motive to gain illegally by misusing the
blank cheques which were procured in trust and good faith by accused No.1 from
petitioner No. 1. In this connection about six months back, the petitioner No. 1 had also
written letters to the banks for non-payment of the cheques on presentation. In December
2005, petitioner No. 2 i.e. mother of petitioner No. 1 received one similar fake notice u/s
138 of Negotiable Instruments Act from Bulandshehar on behalf of one Sh. Rajinder
Singh, accused No.6 herein, in respect of a cheque of the bank in which petitioner No. 2
never had an account in her life. The story put up in the said notice is neither totally false,
fabricated, concocted but also cannot be believed by any stretch of imagination. The story
put up in the notice is humanly impossible. It was later learnt that the notice was got
issued by accused No.2 herein, through some relative or friend residing in Bulandshehar.
It is pertinent to mention here that earlier accused No. 2 herein, tried to grab the property
of petitioner No. 2 by filing a false and frivolous suit in Tis Hazari Court on the basis of
forged documents. While dismissing the application of stay made by accused No. 2 and
his wife, i.e. accused No. 3, the learned Additional District Judge vide its detailed order
6th September 2005 expressed his doubt about the genuineness of the said document.
Having failed in his attempt to do so, accused No. 2 later resorted to another tactic by
getting notice issued from Bulandshehar on behalf of a person whose face has neither
been seen by petitioner No. 1 nor petitioner No. 2. The notice on the face of it is false
since petitioner No. 2 at no stage had any bank account with Bank of America, which sad
the basis of the said notice under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. A
complaint made by the petitioner No. 2 to the police on 22nd December 2005 against
accused Nos. 1, 2 and 7 bearing acknowledged of the P.S. Paschim Vihar. Recently about
two weeks back in January 2006, the petitioner No. 1 has received yet another notice
from Kashipur in Uttaranchal. The notice purported to have been issued on behalf of one
Sh. Ashok Khurana accused No.8 herein son of Sh. Barkat Ram Khurana, near Happy
Public School, Katora Taal Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar, Uttaranchal, needless
to mention that the petitioner does not know even where this Kashipur is situated. He has
never been to said place or even heard of or seen the person by this name. Now here it is
mentioned in the notice when and where the alleged amount was paid. The notice has
been replied by the counsel for the petitioner. The receipt of the notice by the petitioner
No. 1 as well as mother i.e. petitioner No. 2 on behalf of the above said person, clearly
show that they are also part and parcel of the conspiracy hatched by Mr. S.K. Kohli,
accused No. 1 and Mr. Rakesh Kumar Aggarwal, accused No. 2. Due to the above
unlawful acts of the said person the petitioner No. 1 has lost his peaceful life and always
remain under the apprehension of receiving similar fake notices and facing the agony of
criminal trials without any fault on his part. As back as on 18th July 2005 the petitioner
had made a complaint to the SHO of PS Paschim Vihar, New Delhi against Shri Rakesh
Kumar Aggarwal accused No. 2 and his associates for committing acts of forgery,
cheating impersonation etc. On 11th December 2005, petitioner No. 1 made a complaint
to the Station House Officer, PS Paschim Vihar, New Delhi narrating the entire facts.
After receiving the notice from Kashipur, petitioner No. 1 received a threat from the
accused person that they will kill the petitioner No. 1 and his family as and when he or
any one of them appears in any of the courts outside Delhi. Immediately thereafter,
petitioner No. 1 made a detailed complaint against all the aforesaid accused person for
taking action against them under Section 405/420/467/506/120B/34 of IPC.8. After
bestowing thoughtful consideration upon the aforesaid version and counter version, I find
that it would be pre-mature to opine at the investigation stage, if at all, the offences
alleged are prima facie made out or not because the allegations and counter allegations
are required to be investigated into and it would be indeed pre-mature for this court to
declare that no offence is made out. There is no bar to continuance of civil and criminal
proceedings simultaneously.
9. Inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. has to be exercised sparingly
and while doing so, this court is not required to go into the veracity of facts and by taking
the facts on their face value, it cannot be said that the ingredients of the offence alleged
are totally lacking in FIR No. 1166/05. Likewise, it cannot be said that FIR No. 1256/06
is a counter blast to the criminal complaints under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments
Act. Resultantly, Crl. M.C. No. 570-73/2006 for quashing of FIR No. 1166/05 and Crl.
M.C. No. 1892/2007 for quashing of FIR No. 1256/06 do not merit acceptance and both
these petitions are hereby dismissed. Needless to say that interim orders stand vacated
forthwith. However, anything said herein shall have no bearing on the investigation being
conducted in these two FIRs.
10. Since the petition for quashing of FIR No. 1256/06 stands dismissed, therefore,
the prayer made in the five petitions, i.e., Crl. M.C. No. 1179/2007, 1180/2007,
1186/2007, 1187/2007 and 1194/2007 for staying the proceedings till the conclusion of
investigation in aforesaid FIR No. 1256/06 is hereby declined. Let these five complaints
under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act be proceeded with expeditiously by the
trial court.
11. In a similar case of G. Sri Hari v. Nandkishore Lahoti and another, 2003 Crl. L.J.
643, two cases were filed in respect of same transaction, i.e., one for offence under
Section 420 of IPC and another under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and it
was held that the proper course would be to club both the cases together and not to quash
the criminal complaint/case proceedings.
12. The Station House Officer of Police Station Paschim Vihar is directed to ensure
that the investigation in the aforesaid two FIRs i.e. FIR No. 1166/05 and 1256/06 is
carried out expeditiously and in case, Petitioners of Crl. M.C. No. 570-73/2006, i.e.,
Rajeev Kumar Suri and others are charge sheeted in FIR No. 1166/05, then the feasibility
of the trial of the aforesaid FIR case and of the criminal complaints under Section 138 of
Negotiable Instruments Act together by one court be considered by the court concerned.
But this would not thwart the proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act. However, anything said herein will have no bearing on merits at trial of
the cases, which are subject matter of this order.
13. With aforesaid directions, the above titled seven petitions are dismissed.
Sd./-
SUNIL GAUR, J
December 12, 2008
Print Page
643, two cases were filed in respect of same transaction, i.e., one for offence under
Section 420 of IPC and another under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and it
was held that the proper course would be to club both the cases together and not to quash
the criminal complaint/case proceedings.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Judgment pronounced on : December 12, 2008
(1) Crl. M.C. No. 570-73/2006
Rajeev Kumar Suri and Others ...
Versus
State of NCT of Delhi
Read original judgment here;click here
SUNIL GAUR, J.
1. With the consent of parties, the above titled seven petitions have been heard
together and are being disposed of together by this common order.
2. The bare facts which needs to be noticed are that five criminal complaints under
Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act were filed against one Rajeev Kumar Suri and
his wife Smt. Vivian Suri regarding dishonouring of five cheques of Rs.10 lacs, Rs.4.25
lacs, Rs.2 lacs, Rs.2 lacs and Rs.1.5 lacs respectively, and these five criminal complaints
were lodged by Rakesh Aggarwal, his wife Saroj Aggarwal, Ishwar Chand and S.K.
Kohli.
3. Mr. Rajeev Kumar Suri and his wife Smt. Vivian Suri are the Petitioners in Crl.
M.C. No. 1179/2007, 1180/2007, 1186/2007, 1187/2007 and 1194/2007 and the prayer
made by them in the above said five petitions is that the proceedings initiated against
them under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act be stayed till the completion of
investigation in FIR No. 1256/06, under Section 120- B/34/420/467/506 of the IPC,
Police Station Paschim Vihar, New Delhi, which has been lodged by Petitioner Rajeev
Kumar Suri and his wife against aforesaid S.K. Kohli, Rakesh Kumar Aggarwal, Saroj
Aggarwal, Dinesh Chand, Ishwar Chand Mittal, Harish Kumar, Rajinder Singh and
Ashok Khurana. It is a matter of record that aforesaid S.K. Kohli, Rakesh Kumar
Aggarwal, Saroj Aggarwal and Ishwar Chand Mittal are the complainants of complaints
under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act against Petitioner Rajeev Kumar Suri
and his wife Vivian Suri.
4. In Crl. Misc. (M) No. 1892/2007, filed by Rakesh Aggarwal and Saroj Aggarwal,
quashing of aforesaid FIR No.1256/06 under Section 120-B/34/420/467/506 of the IPC,
Police Station Paschim Vihar, New Delhi, registered at the instance of Rajeev Kumar
Suri and his mother Smt. Vimla Suri, has been sought on the ground that it is a counter
blast to the filing of criminal complaints against Rajeev Kumar Suri and his wife Vivian
Suri.
5. In Crl. M.C. No. 570-73/2006, Rajeev Kumar Suri, his mother Smt. Vimla Suri
and his son Puneet Suri, alongwith one Sachin Anand @ Sonu have sought quashing of
FIR No.1166/2005 under Section 415/420/506/511/323/120-B/34 of the IPC, registered
at Police Station Paschim Vihar, at the instance of Rakesh Aggarwal and Saroj Aggarwal
on the ground that the dispute between the parties are primarily of civil nature and
initiation of criminal process is an abuse of process of the Court. It is also asserted that
the ingredients of the offence of cheating are not made out. Reliance has been placed
upon the case of Ajay Mitra vs. State of M.P. and Others, 2003 SCC (Crl.) 703 and on the
case of Ashok Chaturvedi and Others vs. Shitul H. Chanchani and Another, 1998 SCC
(Crl.) 1704.
6. The initial version of Rakesh Kumar Aggarwal, which finds mention in the FIR
No. 1166/05 is as follows:- In May 2004, Suris i.e. Petitioner No.1 and 2 approached
Respondent No. 2 for loan as they wanted to purchase a big lot of vehicles from
Insurance Company and gave temptation to him to pay interest @ 24% p.a., to return loan
within six months and if not paid to pay penalty @ Rs.10,000/- p.m. alongwith interest @
36% p.a. Getting induced Rakesh Aggarwal Respondent No. 2 paid Ten Lacs against
agreement for mortgage and receipt. Since on seeing the agreement and title document of
mortgaged property J-191, RBI Colony, Paschim Vihar, New Delhi, it revealed Petitioner
No. 4 Smt. Vimla mother of Petitioner No. 1 was owner, she also signed agreement.
Initially Petitioner No. 1 and 2 paid interest @ 24% p.a. for six months and sought further
time for repayment. In January 2005 Petitioner No.2 and 3 took Rs.4.25 lacs from
Respondent No. 2 and 3 for selling them a Qualis at a cheaper rate and also to sell the
same by getting handsome profit thereon. Later on it was revealed that the vehicle shown
was already sold. Later on Cheque No.059966 dated 8.3.2005 for Rs.4.25 lacs in favour
of Respondent No. 3 and cheque No.059967 dated 19.3.2005 for ten lacs in favour of
Respondent No. 2 for return of aforesaid money were given by Petitioner No. 1. The
cheques when presented were dishonoured for reasons Account closed. The Petitioner
No. 1 to 3 in conspiracy with each other with common object induced Respondent No. 2
and 3 to part with Rs.4.25 lacs on the pretext of selling already sold Qualis car at cheaper
rate and then all Petitioners in conspiracy with each other through Petitioner No.1 issued
cheques of account which had already been closed, which discloses mala fide intention
and as such all Petitioners committed offence of cheating Respondent No. 2 and 3 as
neither the vehicle was delivered nor the money taken was returned. The accused persons
on 11.6.2005 alongwith 2-3 persons came to the home of Respondent No. 2 and 3 and
threatened to eliminate them. As such committed offences u/s 415, 420, 506, 323, 34,
120-B of IPC.
7. The counter version of Rajeev Kumar Suri as finds mention in FIR No.
1256/2006, is as under:- Mr. Rajeev Kumar Suri (hereinafter referred to as Petitioner No.
1) has been dealing in sale and purchase of old cars since 1998 under the name and style
Romy Motorsand has a good reputation in the said field. Sh. S.K. Kohli, accused No.1
herein had business dealing with Petitioner No. 1 and also used to look after his day to
day business till February 2005. The Petitioner No. 1 resorting good faith in S.K.Kohli
i.e. accused No.1 used to give him blank signed cheques of different banks besides other
papers for day to day business. However, accused No.2 herein who is a property dealer in
Uttam Nagar defrauded the Petitioner No. 1 and in breach of trust, misused the cheques
which he was holding in trust. This fact came to the knowledge of Petitioner No. 1 in
middle of 2005 when he started receiving notice under Section 138 of Negotiable
Instruments Act from different persons including Shri Rakesh Kumar Aggarwal, Smt.
Saroj Aggarwal w/o Sh. Rakesh Kumar Aggarwal, Shri Dinesh Chand s/o Sh. Jhande Lai,
Sh. Ishwar Chand Mittal s/o Shri Ramesh Chand, Shri Harish Kunwar s/o Sh. Rajinder
Singh r/o D-510, Dauba Colony, NIT Faridabad i.e., accused 2 to 6. All the above said
notices contained an almost similar and identical concocted story of either having
business dealing or that on seeing the car or on asking for arranging the car, the alleged
persons without taking delivery of the vehicle or even without seeing the vehicle, made
payment thereof and thereafter in lieu of that Petitioner No. 1 issued cheques, which on
presentation were dishonoured. The story in each of the notice on the face of it is
unbelievable. Some of the persons on whose behalf the petitioner No.1 received notices
had no business dealing at any stage with him and he was never even seen their faces.
The serial number of the cheques and the story put in each of the aforesaid notices clearly
show that a fraud has been committed by accused No.1 in collusion with accused No.2 to
8 to defraud, harass, blackmail and deceive the petitioner No.1 and his family. In this
regard as back as in July 2005 petitioner No. 1 had lodged a report a report against
accused No.1 and 2 but no action seems to have been taken so far. The entire stories
concocted by the above said persons are ulterior motive to gain illegally by misusing the
blank cheques which were procured in trust and good faith by accused No.1 from
petitioner No. 1. In this connection about six months back, the petitioner No. 1 had also
written letters to the banks for non-payment of the cheques on presentation. In December
2005, petitioner No. 2 i.e. mother of petitioner No. 1 received one similar fake notice u/s
138 of Negotiable Instruments Act from Bulandshehar on behalf of one Sh. Rajinder
Singh, accused No.6 herein, in respect of a cheque of the bank in which petitioner No. 2
never had an account in her life. The story put up in the said notice is neither totally false,
fabricated, concocted but also cannot be believed by any stretch of imagination. The story
put up in the notice is humanly impossible. It was later learnt that the notice was got
issued by accused No.2 herein, through some relative or friend residing in Bulandshehar.
It is pertinent to mention here that earlier accused No. 2 herein, tried to grab the property
of petitioner No. 2 by filing a false and frivolous suit in Tis Hazari Court on the basis of
forged documents. While dismissing the application of stay made by accused No. 2 and
his wife, i.e. accused No. 3, the learned Additional District Judge vide its detailed order
6th September 2005 expressed his doubt about the genuineness of the said document.
Having failed in his attempt to do so, accused No. 2 later resorted to another tactic by
getting notice issued from Bulandshehar on behalf of a person whose face has neither
been seen by petitioner No. 1 nor petitioner No. 2. The notice on the face of it is false
since petitioner No. 2 at no stage had any bank account with Bank of America, which sad
the basis of the said notice under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. A
complaint made by the petitioner No. 2 to the police on 22nd December 2005 against
accused Nos. 1, 2 and 7 bearing acknowledged of the P.S. Paschim Vihar. Recently about
two weeks back in January 2006, the petitioner No. 1 has received yet another notice
from Kashipur in Uttaranchal. The notice purported to have been issued on behalf of one
Sh. Ashok Khurana accused No.8 herein son of Sh. Barkat Ram Khurana, near Happy
Public School, Katora Taal Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar, Uttaranchal, needless
to mention that the petitioner does not know even where this Kashipur is situated. He has
never been to said place or even heard of or seen the person by this name. Now here it is
mentioned in the notice when and where the alleged amount was paid. The notice has
been replied by the counsel for the petitioner. The receipt of the notice by the petitioner
No. 1 as well as mother i.e. petitioner No. 2 on behalf of the above said person, clearly
show that they are also part and parcel of the conspiracy hatched by Mr. S.K. Kohli,
accused No. 1 and Mr. Rakesh Kumar Aggarwal, accused No. 2. Due to the above
unlawful acts of the said person the petitioner No. 1 has lost his peaceful life and always
remain under the apprehension of receiving similar fake notices and facing the agony of
criminal trials without any fault on his part. As back as on 18th July 2005 the petitioner
had made a complaint to the SHO of PS Paschim Vihar, New Delhi against Shri Rakesh
Kumar Aggarwal accused No. 2 and his associates for committing acts of forgery,
cheating impersonation etc. On 11th December 2005, petitioner No. 1 made a complaint
to the Station House Officer, PS Paschim Vihar, New Delhi narrating the entire facts.
After receiving the notice from Kashipur, petitioner No. 1 received a threat from the
accused person that they will kill the petitioner No. 1 and his family as and when he or
any one of them appears in any of the courts outside Delhi. Immediately thereafter,
petitioner No. 1 made a detailed complaint against all the aforesaid accused person for
taking action against them under Section 405/420/467/506/120B/34 of IPC.8. After
bestowing thoughtful consideration upon the aforesaid version and counter version, I find
that it would be pre-mature to opine at the investigation stage, if at all, the offences
alleged are prima facie made out or not because the allegations and counter allegations
are required to be investigated into and it would be indeed pre-mature for this court to
declare that no offence is made out. There is no bar to continuance of civil and criminal
proceedings simultaneously.
9. Inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. has to be exercised sparingly
and while doing so, this court is not required to go into the veracity of facts and by taking
the facts on their face value, it cannot be said that the ingredients of the offence alleged
are totally lacking in FIR No. 1166/05. Likewise, it cannot be said that FIR No. 1256/06
is a counter blast to the criminal complaints under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments
Act. Resultantly, Crl. M.C. No. 570-73/2006 for quashing of FIR No. 1166/05 and Crl.
M.C. No. 1892/2007 for quashing of FIR No. 1256/06 do not merit acceptance and both
these petitions are hereby dismissed. Needless to say that interim orders stand vacated
forthwith. However, anything said herein shall have no bearing on the investigation being
conducted in these two FIRs.
10. Since the petition for quashing of FIR No. 1256/06 stands dismissed, therefore,
the prayer made in the five petitions, i.e., Crl. M.C. No. 1179/2007, 1180/2007,
1186/2007, 1187/2007 and 1194/2007 for staying the proceedings till the conclusion of
investigation in aforesaid FIR No. 1256/06 is hereby declined. Let these five complaints
under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act be proceeded with expeditiously by the
trial court.
11. In a similar case of G. Sri Hari v. Nandkishore Lahoti and another, 2003 Crl. L.J.
643, two cases were filed in respect of same transaction, i.e., one for offence under
Section 420 of IPC and another under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and it
was held that the proper course would be to club both the cases together and not to quash
the criminal complaint/case proceedings.
12. The Station House Officer of Police Station Paschim Vihar is directed to ensure
that the investigation in the aforesaid two FIRs i.e. FIR No. 1166/05 and 1256/06 is
carried out expeditiously and in case, Petitioners of Crl. M.C. No. 570-73/2006, i.e.,
Rajeev Kumar Suri and others are charge sheeted in FIR No. 1166/05, then the feasibility
of the trial of the aforesaid FIR case and of the criminal complaints under Section 138 of
Negotiable Instruments Act together by one court be considered by the court concerned.
But this would not thwart the proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act. However, anything said herein will have no bearing on merits at trial of
the cases, which are subject matter of this order.
13. With aforesaid directions, the above titled seven petitions are dismissed.
Sd./-
SUNIL GAUR, J
December 12, 2008
No comments:
Post a Comment