Delhi District Court
Cc No. 666/1/14 Dinesh Kumar Gogna vs . Sharad Aggarwal Page 1 Of 5 on 3 December, 2015
Dinesh Kumar Gogna V. Sharad Aggarwal
CC No. 666/1/14
PS: Karol Bagh
U/s 190/200 Cr. P.C
03/12/ 2015
Present: Counsel for the complainant.
1.Arguments were heard on on the application U/s 156 (3) Cr. P.C. Record perused.
2. Briefly stated that the complainant is carrying of the business of jewellery and in the year 2002-03, complainant purchase a software from the accused Sharad Aggarwal for Rs 25,000 to 30,000/-. After installation of said software accused sent his employee Shanker to impart training to the employees. In December, 2010 aforesaid Shankar came to the complainant for seeking job on the pretext having some dispute with the accused Sharad Aggarwal. Complainant kept Shankar on job. In the first week of October, 2013, complainant received a call from SHO, DLF Phase-I, Gurgaon whereby he was informed that accused has lodged a complaint against complainant and shanker alleging that they have stolen his software and have been selling the same to other jewellers. On 09.10.2013, complainant joined investigation and finding no substance of truth in the allegations, said complaint was filed by the SHO PS Gurgaon. But thereafter, on 13.10.2013, at around 03.00 pm, complainant received a call on his phone number 011-28720176 wherein the called identified himself as Sharad Aggarwal and demanded Rs. 1 crore from the complainant to withdraw the aforesaid complaint. Again complainant got a call at CC No. 666/1/14 Dinesh Kumar Gogna Vs. Sharad Aggarwal page 1 of 5 around 07.40 pm on his mobile no. 9811224235 from the number 911-243273951 and caller extended threat to the complainant to do what Sharad Aggarwal was asking for and otherwise, get ready to face dire consequences. Caller further threatened that Gurgaon police is in his pocket and he will ensure that if the complainant does not paid the said amount within a week, complainant will be sent behind bars or will be eliminated. Thereafter, complainant lodged complaint with SHO PS Karol Bagh on 13.10.2013 but of no avail. Thereafter, complainant received a letter from accused Sharad Aggarwal who extended threat by putting the complainant in fear of injury in order to extort Rs. 1 crore from him. In order to increase the pressure upon the complainant to extort money, accused started sending e-mails to the clients/friends of the complainant levelling false allegations of cheating against the complainant and thereby caused immense harm to the reputation of the complainant. It is also stated that younger brother of the complainant namely Lincoln Gogna was kidnapped and murdered in the year 2001 and complainant is under constant fear of life.
3. The counsel appearing for the complainant has submitted that despite cognizable offence i.e. putting persons in fear of injury/accusation in order to commit extortion being clearly disclosed, the police has failed to discharged its statutory obligation by not registering the FIR on the complaint.
4. The Ld. Counsel also submits that details of threatening calls being made to the complainant by the accused as well as details of aforesaid e-mails can only be obtained / recovered by the police. The Ld. Counsel thus submits that the complaint in question clearly discloses the commission of the offences contemplated U/s CC No. 666/1/14 Dinesh Kumar Gogna Vs. Sharad Aggarwal page 2 of 5 385/387/389 IPC and 500 IPC. It is further submitted by the Ld. Counsel that police officials wants to shirk their responsibility of by not registering the FIR on the pretext that no cognizable offence is being made out.
5. My attention has also been drawn to the various judicial pronouncements including Lalita Kumari vs. Govt. of U.P. & Ors., AIR 2014 SC 187; Lallan Chaudhary vs. State of Bihar, 2006 (3) JCC 1731; & Radha vs. State of Delhi, 2011 (2) JCC 1414 to show that when any complaint discloses commission of a cognizable offence, the police is bound to register the FIR.
6. I have considered the aforesaid facts and circumstances and also gone through the ATR. From the perusal of the complaint, it is clear that there are categorical allegations of putting complainant in fear of injury as well as in fear of accusation of offence in order to commit extortion by the accused. From the perusal of the documents filed by the complainant, it is revealed that matter has not been investigated properly by the police officials on the pretext of no cognizable offence is being made out. Obviously, the veracity and the genuineness of the allegations made in the complaint can only be verified after proper investigation and at this stage, it would not be proper to comment upon the merits of the allegations and the averments made in the complaint. In Ramesh Kumari vs. State, 2006 Cri LJ 1622, it was held that -
"Genuineness or credibility of the information is not a condition precedent for registration of a case and that can only be considered after registration of the case. The mandate of Section 154 of the Code is that at the stage of registration of a crime or a case on the basis of the CC No. 666/1/14 Dinesh Kumar Gogna Vs. Sharad Aggarwal page 3 of 5 information disclosing a cognizable offence, the police officer concerned cannot embark upon an enquiry as to whether the information laid by the informant is reliable and genuine or otherwise and refuse to register a case on the ground that the information is not relevant or credible."
7. It is also a settled proposition of law that a First Information Report is not an encyclopedia which must disclose all facts and details of the offence reported. The provisions of Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 impose an absolute obligation and duty on the officer in-charge of a police station to record information in the FIR Register whenever the information so received discloses the commission of a cognizable offence. Meaning thereby that the officer in-charge of a police station has no option or discretion to not to register an FIR in such circumstances otherwise, it would defeat the Legislative intent behind the spirit of Section 154 of Cr. PC.
8. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I am satisfied that the complaint in question discloses the commission of various cognizable offences and the allegations, if taken on face value, are also of serious nature, which may require sustained interrogation / investigation and also possibly some scientific investigation to bring out the truth on record. All the evidence are not within the reach of complainant and further investigation is required.
9. Hence, the present application U/s 156 (3) Cr. PC is allowed and the SHO, PS: Karol Bagh is directed to register an FIR. Copy of this order be sent to the SHO, PS: Karol Bagh to register an FIR in CC No. 666/1/14 Dinesh Kumar Gogna Vs. Sharad Aggarwal page 4 of 5 the present case. Copy of the FIR so registered be also supplied to the complainant within next 3 days.
10. List for Status Report on 01.02.2016.
Pronounced and Signed in the Open Court on 03.12.2015 (Shilpi Jain) MM-01(Central)/THC/Delhi 03.12.2015 CC No. 666/1/14 Dinesh Kumar Gogna Vs. Sharad Aggarwal page 5 of 5