LE Correspondent

New Delhi, June 1, 2022: While dismissing the petition instituted by the petitioner under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of the FIR, the Delhi High Court has deprecated the act of the police official of stalling the investigations and held that every citizen of this country is entitled to the protection of law

A Single Bench of Justice Asha Menon observed that in the instant case forgery was repeatedly alleged by the third respondent and hence this was not the case where a civil dispute was turned into a criminal case. 

It was the case of the complainant- third respondent that, when he had filed the first complaint, he had no documents with him, and his complaint was that the petitioners had stolen his original title deeds. He had filed the first complaint dated June, 5, 2007 alleging that the petitioners had befriended him on a business proposition concerning the commencement of a security agency in partnership with them. However, under intoxication of the complainant/third respondent they made him sign the blank papers, and later he discovered that the original title deeds of the property were in the name of the complainant’s wife. No action taken on the said complaint. 

It was the case of the petitioner that there was delay in filing of the second complaint which resulted in filing of the FIR and thus the delay was sufficient to quash the FIR. With respect to the same, the Court held,”In the opinion of this Court, the complaint presented to the police in 2014 cannot be considered as a second complaint when the first one was not acted upon. Even if the complaint of 2014 is to be treated as a second complaint, since no final report had been submitted on the previous complaint after completing investigations, there is no bar to the subsequent complaint, on the basis of which, at least an FIR has been registered.”

Reliance was also placed on the judgments in Mahesh Chand Vs. B. Janardhan Reddy & others & Pratibha Rani v. Suraj Kumar and Another. According to the Bench, the petitioners instituted the civil suit for specific performance after the first complaint was lodged but that suit was not sufficient to convert the dispute in the instant case to a civil dispute. In light of the foregoing observations, the Court observed that there was no merit in the present petition and accordingly it was dismissed. 

0 CommentsClose Comments

Leave a comment