Delhi District Court
Sh. S. P. Gupta vs The State Of Nct on 10 November, 2014
IN THE COURT OF SH. NARINDER KUMAR
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE(CENTRAL): DELHI
Criminal Revision No.144/14
Sh. S. P. Gupta
Officiating Principal,
Kirorimal College,
Maurice Nagar, Delhi09. ....Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of NCT
2. Sh. Mithilesh Kumar Singh,
45B, Ranajee Enclave,
Nazafgarh Road, New Delhi43. ....Respondents
Date of Institution: 21.10.2014
Date of Judgment: 10.11.2014
J U D G M E N T
Present revision petition has been filed challenging order dated 14.10.2014 passed by learned Trial Court in complaint case no. 896/1.
2. Vide impugned order dated 14.10.2014, learned Trial Court has allowed the application under Section 156 (3) CrPC filed by complainant - respondent no. 2 herein and directed the police to register an FIR and investigate the matter in accordance with law with further directions submission of 1 compliance report within a week and status report by 01.12.2014.
3. The impugned order reads as under : "It has been stated on behalf of concerned SHO that legal opinion from the prosecution branch was also obtained in this case but certain queries are yet to be clarified from the University of Delhi. It is to be noted that serious allegations of cheating and forgery have been levelled by the complainant against the officials of Kirori Mal College and the prosecution has already opined for registration of FIR in th is case but the police authorities have not yet registered the FIR.
In the facts and circumstances as revealed on record, the court is satisfied that a prima - facie case is made out which requires thorough investigation by the police. Hence, the application U/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. is hereby allowed and the concerned SHO is directed to register the FIR and investigate the matter in accordance with the law. Compliance report be furnished within one week from today and status report be filed for further proceeding on 01.12.2014."
4. The contention raised by learned counsel for petitioner is that the directions U/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. are issued where case is of cognizable offence, but herein even from the allegations levelled in the complaint, it cannot be said that it is a case of cognizable offence.
5. It has been submitted that as regards forgery the complainant has alleged that the respondents named in the complaint would indulge in forgery and it goes to show that no offence has so far been committed even as per allegations levelled by the complainant. The contention is that in the given circumstances, learned Metropolitan Magistrate should have not ordered for investigation by the police and rather dismissed the same on the ground that 2 no case was made out on the basis of allegations levelled in the complaint.
In support of his contentions, learned counsel has referred to decision in Lalita Kumari V. Government of Uttar Pradesh & Ors., (2014) 2 SCC 1.
On the other hand, learned Addl. P.P. for State and learned counsel for complainant - respondent no.2 have submitted that for the reasons recorded by learned Metropolitan Magistrate, a prima facie case having been made out directions have been rightly issued to the police for registration of case and investigation in the matter. Learned counsel for respondent no.2 has relied on decision in Father Thomas V. State of U.P. & Ors., 2011(1) Criminal Court Cases 820 (Allahabad) (FB) and Vishal Kumar Sharma & Anr. V. State & Anr., 2012 (2) JCC 1001.
6. At the outset it may be mentioned here that in the impugned order, learned Metropolitan Magistrate observed that the prosecution had already opined for registration of FIR in th is case but the police authorities did not yet registered the FIR.
But a perusal of the only status report dt.14.10.2014 submitted by SI Ram Chander of PS Maurice Nagar before Metropolitan Magistrate does not reveal that prosecution had already opined for registration of FIR. What stands recorded in the status report is that on receipt of complaint replies from the authorities mentioned therein were received; that on the basis of reply, legal opinion from prosecution had also been obtained but as per directions 3 senior officers, some queries were yet to be made from the University of Delhi. This goes to show that the police of PS Maurice Nagar was conducting inquiry on the complaint received at that police station from Sh. Mithilesh Kumar Singh
- respondent no.2 herein. It cannot be said to be a case where prosecution had already opined for registration of FIR on the complaint.
7. In the impugned order, learned Metropolitan Magistrate has observed that allegations of only following two offences have been levelled by the complainant against officials of Kirori Mal College : (1) Cheating (2) Forgery Perusal of criminal complaint would reveal that complainant - respondent no.2 has levelled allegations alleging commission of following offences; embezzlement, criminal conspiracy, criminal breach of trust, impersonation for the purpose of cheating, Cheating, forgery, user of false documents as genuine and offences under Prevention of Corruption Act.
So, it cannot be said that the complainant levelled allegations of commission of only two offences as observed by Metropolitan Magistrate in the impugned order.
8. Furthermore, the allegations have not been levelled only against officials of Kirori Mal College as observed in the impugned order, but also against unknown officials / officers of UGC and University of Delhi.
9. In brief, the allegations levelled by the complainant - respondent no.2 in 4 his criminal complaint are regarding suppression and misappropriation of funds of Rs.1,50,00,000/ granted by UGC to Kirori Mal College for conducting NET
- UGC Examination in December,2012 and June,2013 for withdrawal of a sum of Rs.10,73,640/. In this regard, a cheque dt.19.03.2013, is stated to have been issued Sh. S.P. Gupta - petitioner and Sh. Rajinder Mann. When the latter was admittedly not an employee of the college. Another allegation is that a substantial sum of Rs.63 lacs was withdrawn for unknown purposes. On three occasions, a sum of Rs.60 lacs i.e. Rs.35 lacs in December,2012; Rs.10 lacs & Rs.15 lacs in January,2013 was withdrawn in cash for unknown reasons.
Specific allegation has been levelled by the complainant that in order to suppress their guilt. Petitioner herein and Sh. Rajinder Mann have prepared false documents in support of their claim, out of the first installment of Rs.75 lacs and submitted the same to UGC. Furthermore, Sh. Rajinder Mann is stated to have impersonated himself as an auditor.
Reference has also been made to a letter from Sh. J.P. Mahajan Bursar of the college wherein there is an allegation of transfer of a sum of Rs.75 lacs from the regular account to an unauthorized account.
There are specific allegations of misappropriation of funds, for conducting the two UGC - NET Examination in December,2012 and June, 2013, on the basis of forged and fabricated documents. It has also been 5 alleged that funds received from UGC have not been shown in the annual accounts with malafide intention and ulterior motive.
10. From the allegations levelled by the complainant - respondent no.2, it appears that he "suspects" commission of offences in respect of the two funds sanctioned by UGC for payment to Kirori Mal College for the purpose of the examinations.
In Lalita Kumari's case (supra), reference has been made to provisions of Sec.157 Cr.P.C. which provides that a police officer can start investigation when he has reasons to suspect the commission of offence. So, law does not bar filing of complainant on suspicion of commission of offences. It is a different matter that on completion of investigation police may find it to be a case based on false information given by informant or complainant and as such a fit case for closure, but in such a situation, the opposite party shall have option to prosecute complainant for filing false FIR.
11. Herein, as alleged by the complainant, he reported the matter to police of PS Maurice Nagar, DCP, Civil Lines and the Commissioner of Police on 30.05.2014 and subsequently supplied documents from time to time the SHO and other senior police officers including DCP, but neither any action was taken on his complaint nor he was informed about the status of probe on his complaint, despite repeated requests.
In the given facts and circumstances, police should have apprised the 6 complainant of the action taken on his complaint and not kept him in dark for such a long time i.e. w.e.f.30.05.2014, particularly when he alleges to have taken up matter with senior police officers after having reported the same by way of complaints.
12. As noticed above, in the status report, it finds mention that legal opinion was sought by the police from prosecution department whether to register or not to register FIR. Present complaint came to be filed on 30.05.2014. Even prior thereto, in Lalita Kumari's case (supra) Hon'ble Apex Court clearly issued directions for registration of FIR where the information discloses commission of cognizable offence. This Court finds that in view of the well settled law, there was no need at all for the police to seek legal opinion from prosecution department whether to register or not to register FIR on the complaints submitted by respondent no.2. By seeking legal opinion from the prosecution department, police simply delayed the requisite action. Not only this, police did not apprise the informant as to what was going on at the police station on his complaints submitted on 30.05.2014. This Court feels that as and when information of an offence is communicated to the police by an informant - aggrieved person, police must regularly inform him of the steps being taken on the basis of his information, so that the person already feeling aggrieved does not feel further aggrieved at the hands of the police for want of information from them about the action initiated and the steps taken. 7
This Court finds that in the given circumstances, complainant had no option but to knock at the door of the court, even on the basis of suspicion of commission of offences by the persons arrayed as respondents in the criminal complaint.
It is true that one of the offences alleged by the complainant is under Prevention and Corruption Act and as per decision in Lalita Kumari's case (supra), preliminary inquiry may be made before registration of FIR, but, herein, sufficient time having elapsed from the date of reporting of the matter to the police, and the complainant having not been apprised of the outcome of probe on his complaint, he was justified in lodging criminal complaint with the court on 23.09.2014 without waiting any further for the outcome of preliminary inquiry.
In the given facts and circumstances, when the allegations disclosed cognizable offence, the only directions which need to be issued by the court to the police is for registration of FIR and investigation of the case in accordance with law.
14. As a result of the above discussion and reasons given by this Court, there is no merit in this revision petition or in the contention that the allegations levelled in the complaint do not disclose commission of cognizable offence, so as to set aside directions issued for registration of case and investigation. The revision petition is accordingly dismissed.
8
Trial Court record be returned. File of Revision be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in Open Court
on 10.11.2014 (Narinder Kumar )
Additional Sessions Judge(Central)
Delhi.
9