Delhi District Court
Manrich Singh Narang vs Gaurav Kalra on 17 August, 2016
IN THE COURT OF SHRI RAJ KUMAR TRIPATHI
ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE02 : SOUTH EAST
SAKET COURT : NEW DELHI
IN RE: Criminal Revision No.204250/16
ID No. 02406R0301312015
1. Manrich Singh Narang
S/o Late Shri Rajinder Singh
B60, Friends Colony West,
New Delhi - 65
2. Samrat Singh Nirula
S/o Late Satinder Singh Nirula
A258, New Friends Colony,
New Delhi - 110065
. . . . Revisionist No.1 & 2
Through: Shri Vikas Pahwa, Senior
Advocate with Shri Abhishek
Dhingra, Advocate.
versus
1. Gaurav Kalra
S/o Late Subhash Kalra
R/o D302, Nagarjuna Apartments,
Mayur Kunj, New Delhi - 96 .... Respondent No.1
2. Priya Kalra W/o Gaurav Kalra R/o D302, Nagarjuna Apartments, Mayur Kunj, New Delhi - 96 .... Respondent No.2 Through: Shri Manohar Malik, Advocate CR No.204250/16 1 of 11
3. Hiralal Hiranandani S/o Datta Ram R/o 30/187A, Vikram Vihar, Lajpat NagarIV, New Delhi ... Respondent No.3 None
4. Manju Verma H.No. 175, Kailash Nagar, Gandhi Chowk, Ghaziabad, U.P. ... Respondent No.4 Through: Shri Manohar Lal, Advocate
5. Jitender Sharma 29, Krishna Kunj, 4th Floor, Khidrabad Village, Near Gurudwara, New Friends Colony, ... Respondent No.5 Through: Sh. S. Firoz, Advocate
6. Nitin Driver/employee of Gaurav and Priya Kalra, s/o Bishan R/o 3/284, Tirlokpuri, New Delhi 91 ... Respondent No.6 None
7. State ( Govt. of NCT of Delhi) ...... Respondent No. 7 Through: Sh. M. Zafar Khan, Addl. Public Prosecutor __________________________________________________________ Date of Institution : 19.09.2015 Date when arguments were heard : 31.05.2016 Date of Judgment : 17.08.2016 CR No.204250/16 2 of 11 JUDGMENT :
1. Revisionists have filed the present revision petition under section 397 read with section 399 of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short "Cr.P.C."), wherein they challenged order dated 21.07.2015 passed by learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (in short "CMM"), South East, Saket Courts, New Delhi on an application under section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. in case CC No.64/1/2012 titled as Manrich Singh Narang & Anr. Vs. Gaurav Kalra & Ors.
2. Revisionists filed a criminal complaint under section 200 Cr.P.C.
against respondent No.1 to 6, wherein they prayed to summon the respondents and try them for commission of offences punishable under section 384, 385, 387, 389, 406, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 474, 504, 506, 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short "IPC"). Alongwith the complaint, they also filed an application under section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. seeking directions to SHO Police Station New Friends Colony to register an FIR against respondents and to conduct an impartial investigation into the matter.
3. Before disposing off the application of revisionists, learned CMM was pleased to call Action Taken Report from the police. Report was submitted in the court. After hearing submissions of revisionists and on perusal of material on record, learned CMM was pleased to dismiss the application of revisionists under section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. They were directed to lead presummoning evidence in the case to prove their allegations as made in the complaint.
CR No.204250/16 3 of 11
4. Revisionists, feeling aggrieved by impugned order dated 21.07.14 passed by learned CMM, have preferred the present petition.
5. On notice of the petition, respondent no.1 and 2 i.e. Gaurav Kalra and Priya Kalra appeared through their counsel Shri Manohar Malik, respondent No.4 Manju Verma appeared with his counsel Shri Manohar Lal and respondent No.5 Jitender Sharma made appearance with his counsel Shri S. Firoz and respondent No.7 State (NCT of Delhi) appeared through Shri M. Zafar Khan, Additional Public Prosecutor to contest the petition. The other respondents despite service of notice of petition did not appear to contest the petition filed by revisionists.
6. I have heard and considered the submissions advanced by Shri Vikas Pahwa, learned senior counsel for revisionists, Shri Manohar Malik, learned counsel for respondent No.3, Shri Manohar Lal, learned counsel for respondent No.4, Shri S. Firoz, learned counsel for respondent No.5 and Shri M. Zafar Khan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for State/respondent No.7 and carefully perused the record of the case.
7. Brief facts of revisionists' case are that they are partners in MNS Estate and Constructions, 4B, 1st Floor, Taimoor Nagar, New Friends Colony, Delhi. They stated that in January, 2012, a property bearing No.F268, Sarita Vihar, New Delhi was jointly purchased as per an MOU in the name of Priya Kalra, Smt. Surinder Kaur (mother of petitioner No.2) and Rajender Singh Narang (father of petitioner No.2). The said property was sold to Rajeev Chhabra and Taran Chhabra and sale proceeds was distributed among the revisionists and Priya Kalra as per the said MOU.
CR No.204250/16 4 of 11
8. In June, 2013, Priya Kalra and Gaurav Kalra had meetings with the revisionists, who are alleged to have represented them that they had purchased two pieces of land situated at Village Karanki and Village Tolni, both at Tehsil Sohna, District Gurgaon, Haryana admeasuring 40 Acres from its owner Smt. Rajbala. They are further alleged to have induced the revisionists to invest money in the said land. They are reported to have shown relevant papers to revisionists which were later on found to be forged. The revisionists entered into an MOU dated 14.04.2013. As per the said MOU, the land was divided into three equal shares among Priya Kalra and the revisionists. The revisionists are reported to have made a part payment of Rs.60 Lacs to Gaurav Kalra and Priya Kalra towards the sale consideration of 2/3rd of the said land.
9. The revisionists further stated that even after passage of one year of signing the MOU, there was no development in this regard and therefore, they inquired into the matter and thereafter, they came to know that actual owner of the above said property was Mrs. Rajbala, an NRI, who was in Singapore and she had not sold the said property to anyone. They further alleged that Gaurav Kalra and Priya Kalra had produced some lady to them, who impersonated herself as Rajbala and signed all the relevant documents posing herself as Rajbala. They further stated that when they confronted these facts to Priya Kalra, she acknowledged her fault and assured to return the double of Rs.60 Lacs to them. Gaurav Kalra and Priya Kalra are reported to have issued three cheques for a total amount of Rs.1.20 Crores, out of which one cheque of Rs.60 Lacs was dishonoured on presentation. The revisionists sent a legal notice dated 30.10.14 to Gaurav Kalra and Priya Kalra calling CR No.204250/16 5 of 11 upon them to remit the remaining amount of Rs.60 Lacs. The respondents instead of making payment to revisionists, are alleged to have threatened them not to initiate any legal proceedings or they would get them and their families killed. Therefore, they lodged criminal complaint against Gaurav Kalra and Priya Kalra on 13.11.14 at Police Station New Ashok Nagar.
10. The revisionists further alleged that Gaurav Kalra and Priya Kalra have forged some documents, produced a lady, who signed the documents impersonating herself as Rajbala and on the basis of those forged documents, the said persons alleged that they have paid Rs.6.11 Crores to revisionists as part payment towards sale consideration of Rs.18.33 Crores and that the fake Rajbala executed those documents at the instance of revisionists.
11. In the Action Taken Report filed by police, it was reported that pursuant to the directions dated 06.01.15 passed by learned ACMM, SouthEast, on the application of Gaurav Kalra under section 156 (3) Cr.P.C., a case FIR No.12/15 under section 419/420/468/471/506/120B IPC was registered on 07.01.15 at Police Station New Friends Colony.
12. The relevant portion of impugned order dated 21.07.15 which is under challenge in the present petition is reproduced hereunder for ready reference: "After considering the entire facts and circumstances of the present case, contents of which are not being repeated for the sake of brevity, the court is of the view that it is not a fit case where direction should be issued for registration of FIR as on the same CR No.204250/16 6 of 11 set of allegations, a FIR has already been registered and charge sheet also been filed, therefore, no fruitful purpose will be served for giving directions for registration of FIR and interrogate the same set of allegations which had already been interrogated. Moreover the evidence/documentary evidence is well within the reach of complainant.
Keeping in view of the facts and circumstances of the present case as well as the discussion made herein above the application under consideration is hereby dismissed. Complainant is required to establish his case by way of leading the evidence."
13. It was submitted by learned senior counsel for revisionists that the impugned order is perverse and illegal in as much as it is based on an erroneous approach of law. He submitted that learned CMM has not appreciated, rather overlooked the fact that Hon'ble Apex Court in a plethora of judgments held and clarified the position of law with regard to multiple FIRs/cross complaint/second FIR. He submitted that law does not prohibit registration and investigation of two FIRs in respect of same incident having different version of events. He argued that learned trial court overlooked the fact that the complaint preferred by revisionists discloses an entirely different version of facts, which were disclosed by revisionists only after the respondents filed forged and fabricated documents before learned CMM, SouthEast and fraudulently obtained order dated 06.01.15 resulting in registration of FIR No.12/15 at Police Station New Friends Colony. Learned senior CR No.204250/16 7 of 11 counsel pointed out that respondents forged the documents i.e. an Agreement to Sell dated 06.05.13 executed between Rajbala, M/s Golden Kist and the revisionists, Undertaking dated 06.05.13, MOU dated 24.05.13 executed between revisionists and respondent Priya Kalra, MOU dated 03.06.14. He submitted that the complaint lodged by petitioners discloses commission of serious offences by the respondents, who systematically executed a well planned criminal conspiracy to defraud the petitioners and extract Crores of money from them. It was prayed to set aside the impugned order dated 21.07.15 passed by learned CMM being perverse, unjustified, unwarranted and being passed without considering the facts and material on record. In support of his submissions, learned senior counsel for revisionists relied upon judgments titled as Shiv Shankar Singh Vs. State of Bihar & Anr. (2012) 1 SCC 130, Babu Bhai Vs. State of Gujarat & Ors. (2010) 12 SCC 254, Upkar Singh Vs. Ved Prakash & Ors. (2004) 13 SCC 292 and T.T. Anthony Vs. State of Kerala (2001) 6 SCC 181.
14. Per contra, it was submitted by learned counsel for respondents that learned trial court rightly dismissed the application of revisionists under section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. for registration of FIR as in respect of same incident, a case FIR No.12/15 Police Station New Friends Colony is already registered. They further submitted that version of revisionists can be investigated in the said FIR. It was further argued that there is no infirmity or illegality in the order passed by learned trial court and the petition filed by revisionists is without any basis. The respondents prayed to dismiss the petition of revisionists.
CR No.204250/16 8 of 11
15. I have considered the rival submissions of both the parties and carefully perused the entire material available on record.
16. In the case of Surender Kaushik & Ors. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. (2013) 5 SCC 148, it was held by Hon'ble Apex Court that a second FIR is not permissible when there are allegations of same / improved version in respect of same incident/offence. However, a rival version in respect of same incident do take different shapes and in that event, lodgment of two FIRs is permissible. Hon'ble Court held that counter FIR in respect of same or connected incident is permissible. It was held that merely because appellant lodged FIR against certain persons alleging fabrication of documents and forgery, that could not debar other aggrieved persons from subsequently seeking Magistrate's directions under section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. for registration of FIR against some other including appellant relating to counter allegations.
17. In the case of Upkar Singh's case (supra), Hon'ble Supreme Court held that second complaint in regard to same incident filed as a counter complaint is not prohibited under Cr.P.C. Hon'ble Court held that on refusal by police to register counter complaint, Magistrate can direct the police, at any stage to register the complaint and investigate the same. Sections 161 and 162 Cr.P.C. do not apply to such a situation.
18. In Shiv Shankar's case (supra), Hon'ble Apex Court held that registration of more than one FIR in respect of same incident, but with different versions is permissible. It was held that law does not prohibit registration and investigation of two FIRs in respect of same incident CR No.204250/16 9 of 11 having different version of events.
19. In the present case, revisionists have levelled allegations of cheating and forgery against respondents. As per complaint of revisionists, respondent Gaurav Kalra and Priya Kalra induced them to invest money in two pieces of land situated at Village Karanki and Village Tolni in Tehsil Sohna, District Gurgaon, Haryana admeasuring 40 Acres. As per them, the respondents showed relevant documents to them which were later on found to be forged and fabricated. The revisionists are reported to have made part payment of Rs.60 Lacs to Gaurav Kalra and Priya Kalra towards sale consideration of 2/3rd of the land as per MOU dated 14.06.13. On the cross version of respondents Gaurav Kalra and Priya Kalra and as per directions of learned ACMM, South East passed on application under section 156 (3) Cr.P.C., a case FIR bearing No.12/15 has already been registered at Police Station New Friends Colony. The respondents are alleged to have forged a number of documents which are mentioned in para No.18 of the complaint. The complaint filed by revisionists disclose commission of cognizable offences. The version put forth by revisionists in their complaint is counter to the version of respondents Gaurav Kalra and Priya Kalra. As on the allegations of Gaurav Kalra and Priya Kalra, one FIR is already registered, therefore, on the cross version of revisionists, another FIR also needs to be registered so that truth of the matter can be ascertained. It can be found out as to who is right and who is wrong. Further, it can come on record as to who has actually forged the documents in respect of property in question. The original documents are to be recovered by the police. The source of forgery as well as fabrication of documents by CR No.204250/16 10 of 11 the alleged accused persons cannot be proved by revisionists on their own. Therefore, police assistance/investigation in the matter is necessary. There is no bar in registration of second FIR on the cross version of the opposite party.
20. For the reasons discussed above and in view of settled position of law, in my view, learned CMM was not justified in refusing for registration of FIR on the complaint of revisionists when on the cross version of opposite party, one FIR has already been directed to be registered. Record reveals that vide order dated 09.04.15, Commissioner of Police, Delhi directed for transfer of investigation of case FIR No.12/15 from SouthEast District to EOW, Delhi with immediate effect. However, IO of the case filed challan in the court of learned ACMM, SouthEast on 15.04.15 i.e. after six days of order of transfer of investigation.
21. In view of above, the impugned order dated 21.07.15 passed by learned CMM, SouthEast, Delhi is hereby set aside. SHO PS New Friends Colony is directed to register an FIR on the complaint of revisionists and investigate the matter as per law. Copy of order and also of the complaint of revisionists be sent to SHO PS New Friends Colony for information and necessary action.
22. A true copy of judgment along with TCR be sent back to learned trial court concerned. Revision file be consigned to record room.
Announced in the open (RAJ KUMAR TRIPATHI)
court today i.e. 17.08.2016 Addl. Sessions Judge02
SouthEast, Saket Courts, New Delhi
CR No.204250/16 11 of 11