Sheetal Sharma & Anr. v. State NCT of Delhi

not to be confused with the norm which has been formulated in the context of the death penalty, as explained previously by this Court); v) While examining an FIR/complaint, quashing of which is sought, the court cannot embark upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR/complaint; vi) Criminal proceedings ought not to be scuttled at the initial stage; vii) Quashing of a complaint/FIR should be an exception and a rarity than an ordinary rule; viii) Ordinarily, the courts are barred from usurping the jurisdiction of the police, since the two organs of the State operate in two specific spheres of activities. The inherent power of the court is, however, recognised to secure the ends of justice or prevent the above of the process by Section 482 Cr.P.C. ix) The functions of the judiciary and the police are complementary, not overlapping; x) Save in exceptional cases where non-interference would result in miscarriage of justice, the Court and the judicial process should not interfere at the stage of investigation of offences; xi) Extraordinary and inherent powers of the Court do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the Court to act according to its whims or caprice; xii) The first information report is not an encyclopaedia which must disclose all facts and details relating to the offence reported. Therefore, when the investigation by the police is in progress, the court should not go into the merits of the allegations in the FIR. Police must be permitted to complete the investigation. It would be premature to pronounce the conclusion based on hazy facts that the complaint/FIR does not deserve to be investigated or that it amounts to abuse of process of law. During or after investigation, if the investigating officer finds that there is no substance in the application made by the complainant, the investigating officer may file an appropriate report/summary before the learned Magistrate which may be considered by the learned Magistrate in accordance with the known procedure; xiii) The power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is very wide, but conferment of wide power requires the court to be cautious. It casts an onerous and more diligent duty on the court; xiv) However, at the same time, the court, if it thinks fit, regard being had to the parameters of quashing and the self-restraint imposed by law, more particularly the parameters laid down by this Court in the cases of R.P. Kapur (supra) and Bhajan Lal (supra), has the jurisdiction to quash the FIR/complaint; and xv) When a prayer for quashing the FIR is made by the alleged accused, the court when it exercises the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., only has to consider whether or not the allegations in the FIR disclose the commission of a cognizable offence and is not required to consider on merits whether the allegations make out a cognizable offence or not and the court has to permit the investigating agency/police to investigate the allegations in the FIR.”

10. It is to be noted that in Bhajan Lal (Supra) and Neeharika Infrastructure (Supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has cautioned that High Court, in exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C may interfere in proceedings relating to cognizable offences to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, but such power should be exercised sparingly and that too in the rarest of rare cases.

11. In the present case, there are specific allegations in the FIR as well as in the statements of witnesses recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. that the petitioner no. 1 had cheated people in the name of Complainant Company as well as other companies such as Naaptol Bazar, Naaptol India Shopping, Snap Deal, etc in the name of selling their franchise. There are specific allegations against petitioner no. 2 that he had provided mobile phones to people in his team for tele-calling and that he had cheated more than hundred innocent persons. It is alleged by complainant on behalf of complainant company that accused persons including present petitioners had impersonated themselves as complainant company which provides internet based marketplace or platform with free and paid listings for several industry/product/services and SME sector wherein buyers and sellers interact with each other for fulfilling their requirements and petitioners herein along with other accused persons had cheated general public by offering dealerships of complainant company. It is stated that the petitioners herein along with other accused persons had also induced persons to enter into dealership agreements, in lieu of deposit of security amount. One of the complainants namely, Ram Kishore, who had filed a public complaint to the complainant company had alleged that he was cheated for a sum of Rs. 25,000/- from accused persons who had impersonated themselves to be complainant company by providing fake identity cards and forged documents. As per disclosure statement recorded of petitioner no. 1, three mobile phones were recovered and seized from her possession, and she had stated that she used one of the mobile phones to make calls to people wherein she had impersonated to be an agent of Complainant Company. The recovered mobile phones were analyzed, and requests were made to various banks to block the bank accounts and set forth the bank statements of petitioner no. 1. One of the witnesses who was also an employee of one of the accused persons, namely, Amit Soni, and two mobile phones were recovered from her, and she had stated that those mobile phones were given to her by petitioner no. 2.

12. During the course of investigation, the statement of mother of petitioner no. 2 was recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. wherein it was revealed that petitioner no. 2 was absconding therefore, proceedings under Section 82 Cr.P.C. were initiated and NBWs were issued against petitioner no. 2 and other co-accused namely, Akshay Solanki. The petitioner no. 2 was apprehended in a separate case FIR bearing no. 139/2019 registered under Sections 8/21 of NDPS Act from Indore, Madhya Pradesh. The coaccused, Akshay Soni had surrendered before the learned Trial Court and he had stated during interrogation that he was an employee of petitioner no. 2 and he used to call other people on instructions of petitioner no. 2. After learned Trial Court had dismissed anticipatory bail application moved by petitioner no. 2, he was arrested before the learned Trial Court.

13. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rakhi Mishra vs State of Bihar and Others (2017) 16 SCC 772 has held that the High Court can use its power under Section 482of Cr.P.C. only in exceptional circumstances when a prima facie case is not made out against the accused. Further, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Tilly Gifford v. Michael Floyd Eshwar and Anr.(2018) 11 SCC 205,has held as under:

14. The petitioners in the present case have not raised any contention or any ground which would prime facie show that the FIR in the present case has resulted in any abuse of process of law or that the allegations levelled against the petitioners are inherently improbable or absurd or that they do not constitute commission of any offence.

15. This Court has gone through the record and after going through the same, this Court is of the opinion that investigation is still pending against the petitioners and specific roles have been attributed to them wherein they had cheated innocent persons in the name of Complainant Company and various other companies assuring dealerships of such companies by forging documents.

16. When the investigation has still not concluded, this case in this Court‟s opinion does not fall under the purview of Niranjan Kaur vs New Delhi Hotels Ltd. And Ors. AIR 1988 Delhi 332 and State Bank of India(Successor To...vs Shyama Devi AIR 1978 SC1263, relied upon by petitioners, as the contentions raised before this Court are the defenses which have been raised by learned counsel for petitioners at the appropriate stage of trial.

17. Even considering the relevant principles governing quashing of FIR laid down in Neeharika Infrastructure (supra), this Court is of the view that as per points (iv), (v), (vi), (vii) and (xii), as reproduced in para 9 hereinabove without getting into the merits of the allegations made in the FIR, police must be permitted to complete the investigation. It would be premature to pronounce the conclusion based on incomplete investigation and that the complaint/FIR does not deserve to be investigated further and that it amounts to abuse of process of law.

18. Moreover, neither the allegations leveled against petitioners by the complainant are entirely absurd or improbable, nor it is a case where no prima facie offence at all or no cognizable offence is made out, so as to quash the proceedings within the ambit of principles laid down by the Hon‟ble Apex Court in Bhajan Lal (supra) and Neeharika Infrastructure (supra). No exceptional or rare circumstances have been shown by petitioners which require this Court to interfere with the investigation proceedings at this stage.

19. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case and the allegations and material available on record, this Court finds no reason to quash the present FIR at the present stage of investigation.

20. Accordingly, the present petition stands dismissed.

21. It is however, clarified that the observations made by this Court are only for the purpose of deciding the present petition and shall have no bearing on the merits of the case during the trial.

22. The judgment be uploaded on the website forthwith.