T. K. Murugan v. State of Delhi NCT of Delhi & Anr

1. The brief facts of the case are that the Petitioner had taken a loan from the Respondent No. 2 NI/S Akshaaya Finance Bhaarath Ltd. and pledged his LIC policy as surety, in July, 2008 which was closed by the Petitioner on 6ft August,

2008. Thereafter, reminders were sent by the Petitioner to the Respondent to./ return the said LIC policy. The Petitioner filed Suit No. 313 of 2009 for permanent and mandatory injunction before the learned Additional District Judge stating that the Respondent is trying to encash his matured LIC policy. The learned ADJ vide order dated 17ft March,2009 granted the stay directing LIC not to discharge the said LIC policy in favour of Respondents. The Petitioner then filed a complaint case No. 1326lI of 2009 before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate against Respondents for acts of cheating, forgery etc. with an application under section 156(3) of Cr. PC. In compliance of order Crl. M.C.2047/20L0 2011:DHC:10613,t dated 3'd August, 2009 of the learned Metropolitan Magisttate, FIR number 37712009 was registered under sectious 42014681471134 of IPC. During pendency of the investigation learned Trial Court directed the Respondents to file the various documents. The Respondents accordingly complied with the given direction. Thereafter the Petitioner filed another complaint case No. l40gn of 2009 under Section 156(3) dated 5th Septemb er,2009 alleging that the documents submitted by the Respondents were also forged. The Respondent thereafter moved an application under section 210 of Cr. PC to stay the proceedings of the trial court in complaint case No. 1409/1 of 2009 alleging that the police is already conducting investigation in case FIR number 37712009 in relation to offences which are the subject matter of the ongoing complaint. The learned Metropolitan Magistrate vide order dated 12ft April, 2070 stayed the proceedings under Section 210 Cr.P.C. which is the order impugned in the present petition.

2. Leamed counsel for the Petitioner contends that the first complaint Case No. 3 IZ6ll of 2009 which led to registration of FIR No. 37712009 was filed by him alleging that the Respondents have forged the documents in regard to the loans availed by him and the second complaint dated 5th Septemb e[4] 2009 alleging that the documents submitted by the Respondents in terms of the directions of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate are also forged and that the true/orisinal documents have not been submitted by the Respondents. Thus, the Crl. M.C.2047/2070 ? subsequent complaint before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate was for the subsequent offences committed. He, therefore, urges that the second complaint was filed for the offences committed by Respondents after registration of the FIR by filing forged and newly created document before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate in the first complaint and therefore Section 210 of Cr. P.C. will not be applicable as it is a separate offence committed by the Respondents.

3. Learned counsel for Respondents, however, contends that the Petitioner is trying to distort the facts. According to him, all documents had been submitted by the Respondents in the Learned Trial Court as directed. The first criminal complaint on which FIR No. 37712009 was registered was filed for the offences of forgery, cheating, threatening and criminal misappropriation etc. and the offences in the second criminal complaint include the allegations in the first complaint and that of the alleged creation of false valuable absolute assignment documents for the second and third loan under signature of the Petitioner with two false witnesses and forgery of "already forged documents". Therefore both the offences arise out of the same subject matter and therefore the order dated 12ft April, 2Ol0 should be upheld in the interest ofjustice to avoid the wrongful harassment to the Petitioner by taking cognizance of the same alleged offence twice. Crl. M.C.2047/201-0 <

4. I have heard leamed counsels for the parties and perused the record. On a perusal of the two complaints i.e. 132617/09 on the basis of which registration of FIR was ordered on 3'd August,2009 and the present complaint i.e. CC No. l409lll09 it is clear that the allegations against the Respondents are same and only a few new facts have been added in the present complaint. It would be relevant to note that the allegations set out in complaint case no. 31261112009 are that the complainant/Petitioner had obtained a loan of Rs. 3,50,000/- by pledging his LIC policy and when he paid back the loan in full, the absolute assignment form filled by the Petitioner in favour of the company was not returned, despite several communications and complaints to the company. All the accused persons gave evasive replies. The Policy was due for maturity on 20ft February,2009. He once again asked for his policy from the accused but received no reply. Subsequently he learnt from the LIC office that accused Jai Kumar had furnished the discharge form along with original LIC Policy claiming maturity amount in their favour vide letter dated 25ft February,2009. Thereafter he filed a suit for mandatory injunction and declaration wherein the Court vide order dated 17ft March, 2009 directed LIC not to discharge the amount to accused company. It is alleged that the accused company created false, forged and fabricated documents and used such documents to create valuable rights in their favour.

5. During the pendency of his first complaint, pursuant to an order dated 3'd August, 2009 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, FIR No.37712009 ? Crl. M.C.2047/2010.gwas registered against the Respondents on 4th August, 2009. In that complaint case, the Respondents filed some documents in Court pursuant to directions of the Court, which according to the Petitioner are forged. Thus, the Petitioner filed another complaint case before the learned ACMM reiterating the earlier facts along with few additions. Briefly the new additions incorporated in the €s' t- ' subsequent complaint by the Petitioner besides reiterating earlier allegations are that the loan documents earlier flirnished in the civil suit were forged by the Respondents by making some additional entries, correotions and deletions, thereby converting the unsecured loan into a secured loan. They had created certain. documents of absolute assignment form in support of their contention that the LIC policy was assigned in the name of Respondents in both the secured loan and unsecured loan. According to the. Petitioner, the clates on '{ which the same were allegedly signe,J i-,y the Petitioner were prima facie false a1d forged. The said assignment deeds \vere never produced in the civil suit at the time of filing the reply. This subscquent complaint contains a few nerv f'acts which have been revealed after registration of FIR No. 37712009 in CC NO. 3t2612009.

6. Section 210 Cr.P.C. reads as under: *2I0. Procedure to be followed rn'hen there is a complaint case and police investigation in'respect of the same offence' (1) When in a case instituted othern'ise than on a police report (hereinafter refen'eci to as a cornplaint case), it is made to appeai' to the Magistrate, during the course of the inquiry or trial held by him, that an investigation by thc police is in progress itl relation Crl. M.C.2047/2010 to the offence which is tLre subject-matter of the inquiry or trial ' held by him, the Magistrate shall stay the proceedings of such inquiry or trial and call for a report on the matter from the police officer conducting the investigation. (2) It a report is made by the investigating police officer under section 173 and on such export cognizance of any offence is taken by the Magistrate against any person who is an accused in the complaint case, the Magistrate shall inquire into or try iogether the complaint case and the case arising out of the police report as if both the cases were instituted on a police report. (3) If the police report does not relate to any accused in the complaint cuse ot if the Magistrate does not take cognizance of any offence on the police report, he shall proceed with the inquiry or trial, which was stayed by him, in accordance r,vith the provisions of this Code."

7. In Sankaran Moitra v. Sadhna Das, Qa00 4 scc 584 the Hon',ble Supreme Court held: "78. The Joint Committee of Parliament observed:,.It has been brought to the notice of the committee that.sometimes when a serious case is under investigation by the police, some of the persons file complaint and quickly get an brder of acquittal either by cancellation or otherwise. 'Ihereupon the investigation of the case becomes infructuous leading to miscarriage of justice in some cases. To avoid this, the Committee has provided that where a complaint is filed and the Magistrate has information that the police is also investigating the same offence, the Magistrate shali stay the complaint case. If the police report (under section 173) is received in the case, the llagistrate shor.rld try together the complaint case and the case arising out of the police report. But if no such case is received the lvlagistrate would be fiee to dispose of the complaint case. This ncw provi'sion is intended to secure that private complainants do not interfere with the course ofiustice." - \o 'r. T

79. It is thus clear that before section 210 can be invoked, the follolving conditions must be satisfied'

(i) there must be a complaint pending for inquiry or trial;

(li) investigation by the police must be in progress in relation to the same offence;

(iii) areport must have been made by the police officer under

(iv) the Magistrate must have taken cognizance of an offence against u p.rron who is accused in the complaint case.

8. Therefore in light of the decision rendered and in the facts and circumstances of case the observation of the Learned Metropolitan Magistrate that both the complaints contain same facts with a few additional facts in the new complaint is correct. The substantial allegations in the subsequent complaint are being already investigated in the FIR registered' The impugned order suffers from no illegality much less any infirmity' No ground for interfre'ce is made out as the new facts brought on record by the Petitioners in the subsequent complaint can be investigated into along with the investigation in FIR No.37712009. In case, they are not investigated in the FIR registered, the learned Metropolitan Magistrate can then proceed to try the additional offences made out in subsequent complaint after filing of the charge sheet' Petition is accordingly dismissed. IMffi ' MUKTA GUPTA'J AUGUST l[8],Z0ll/ga \( -d-r