Full Text
Translation output
Crl.M.C.Nos.1588 & 1594 of 2015 Page 1 HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: 21st April, 2015
Date of Decision: 21st April, 2015
CRL.M.C. 1588/2015 & Crl.M.A.Nos.5817-18/2015
SADHU RAMESH BABU ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. V. Sridhar Reddy, Advocate
SADHU RAMESH BABU ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. V. Sridhar Reddy, Advocate
VERSUS
STATE, GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR .... Respondents
Through: Mr.Vinod Diwakar, Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-State with
SI Rajpal PS Tilak Nagar
Through: Mr.Vinod Diwakar, Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-State with
SI Rajpal PS Tilak Nagar
CRL.M.C. 1594/2015 & Crl.M.A.Nos.5827-28/2015
D. SARATH KUMAR ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. V.Sridhar Reddy, Advocate
D. SARATH KUMAR ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. V.Sridhar Reddy, Advocate
VERSUS
STATE , GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR ..... Respondents
Through: Mr.Vinod Diwakar, Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-State with
SI Rajpal, PS Tilak Nagar
Through: Mr.Vinod Diwakar, Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-State with
SI Rajpal, PS Tilak Nagar
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
JUDGMENT
(O R A L)
In the above-captioned two petitions, quashing of FIR
2015:DHC:3626 Crl.M.C.Nos.1588 & 1594 of 2015 Page 2
No.1077/2014 under Section 420/467/120B/34 IPC registered at
Police Station Tilak Nagar, Delhi is sought on merits.
Since subject matter of these two petitions is one FIR, whose quashing is sought on identical grounds, therefore, both these petitions were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.
At the hearing learned counsel for petitioners submitted that registration of FIR in question is an abuse of process of the Court as the subject matter of this FIR is dishonour of cheques regarding which, complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 was filed before the Delhi Courts and a Coordinate Bench of this Court vide judgment of 19th December, 2014 (Annexure P-6) has directed the return of the complaint, to be filed before the court having territorial jurisdiction. Learned counsel for petitioner had placed reliance upon Apex Court’s decision in Poonam Chand Jain &
Anr. V. Fazru (2010) 2 SCC 631 to submit that second complaint on same facts is not maintainable and so registration of FIR regarding dishonour of cheque is clearly not maintainable and so FIR in question deserves to be quashed.
Upon hearing and on perusal of FIR in this case and material on record, I find that this FIR does not solely relate to the dishonour of cheques and pertains to allegations of cheating. There are allegations of forgery and deception as well in this FIR regarding the Agreement of 12th May, 2012 (Annexure P-1). No doubt Memorandum of
Understanding of 13th March, 2014 (Annexure P-2) has been executed in respect of dishonour of cheques but the FIR in question does not
Crl.M.C.Nos.1588 & 1594 of 2015 Page 3 pertain to dishonour of cheques only. The alleged forgery and deception is said to have been done within the territorial jurisdiction of Delhi Courts. Therefore, return of complaint under Section 138 of
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 to the court of competent territorial jurisdiction does not bar the initiation of criminal prosecution by registration of FIR in question.
In the considered opinion of this Court, there is no justification to quash the FIR in question as the decision relied upon has no application to the facts of the instant case.
Accordingly, both petitions and the applications are dismissed.
(SUNIL GAUR)
Judge APRIL 21, 2015 vn
In the above-captioned two petitions, quashing of FIR
2015:DHC:3626 Crl.M.C.Nos.1588 & 1594 of 2015 Page 2
No.1077/2014 under Section 420/467/120B/34 IPC registered at
Police Station Tilak Nagar, Delhi is sought on merits.
Since subject matter of these two petitions is one FIR, whose quashing is sought on identical grounds, therefore, both these petitions were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.
At the hearing learned counsel for petitioners submitted that registration of FIR in question is an abuse of process of the Court as the subject matter of this FIR is dishonour of cheques regarding which, complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 was filed before the Delhi Courts and a Coordinate Bench of this Court vide judgment of 19th December, 2014 (Annexure P-6) has directed the return of the complaint, to be filed before the court having territorial jurisdiction. Learned counsel for petitioner had placed reliance upon Apex Court’s decision in Poonam Chand Jain &
Anr. V. Fazru (2010) 2 SCC 631 to submit that second complaint on same facts is not maintainable and so registration of FIR regarding dishonour of cheque is clearly not maintainable and so FIR in question deserves to be quashed.
Upon hearing and on perusal of FIR in this case and material on record, I find that this FIR does not solely relate to the dishonour of cheques and pertains to allegations of cheating. There are allegations of forgery and deception as well in this FIR regarding the Agreement of 12th May, 2012 (Annexure P-1). No doubt Memorandum of
Understanding of 13th March, 2014 (Annexure P-2) has been executed in respect of dishonour of cheques but the FIR in question does not
Crl.M.C.Nos.1588 & 1594 of 2015 Page 3 pertain to dishonour of cheques only. The alleged forgery and deception is said to have been done within the territorial jurisdiction of Delhi Courts. Therefore, return of complaint under Section 138 of
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 to the court of competent territorial jurisdiction does not bar the initiation of criminal prosecution by registration of FIR in question.
In the considered opinion of this Court, there is no justification to quash the FIR in question as the decision relied upon has no application to the facts of the instant case.
Accordingly, both petitions and the applications are dismissed.
(SUNIL GAUR)
Judge APRIL 21, 2015 vn