Delhi District Court
Pronouncements Including Lalita ... vs . Govt. Of U.P. & Ors., on 9 March, 2016
Dilip Kumar v. Satish Chand Ojha
CC No. 72/1/15
PS: Maurice Nagar
U/s 156(3) Cr. P.C
09/03/2016
Present: Proxy Counsel for the complainant with complainant in
person.
1.Arguments were heard on on the application U/s 156 (3) Cr. P.C. Record perused.
2. Briefly stated that the complainants are the members of HRC thrift and Credit Society, Hans Raj College, Delhi University which is registered under Delhi Co-operative Society Act. The society takes compulsory deposit of Rs. 1125/- from each of its member and gives loan up to the limit of Rs. 2,25,000/-. Complainant no. 1 Sh. Dilip Kumar Singh is the President and complainant no. 2 Sh. Tikka Ram is the Secretary of said society. Proposed accused no. 1 Satish Chand Ojha is accountant/clerk and proposed accused no. 2 Sh. Ajeet Kumar is Treasure of said society. After joining the post, complainant no. 1 observed several financial irregularities whereupon proposed accused no. 1 was called to produce all the accounts, registers, receipts and other relevant documents, however, he provided only three ledger accounts. Upon scrutiny of aforesaid record, it was revealed that proposed accused no. 1 showed more deductions of loan in the society's account but practically there was much less deduction. The total figure of cheating by the manipulation of accounts is about Rs. 15 lakh. Another fraud which was revealed was in the case of one Smt. CC No. 72/1/15 Dilip Kumar v. Satish Chand & Ors. page 1 of 5 Veena Mathur wherein proposed accused no. 1 took a loan of Rs. 1.5 lakh in the year 2010-11 in the name of Smt. Veena Mathur but proposed accused no. 1 destroyed her application form and deposited the said amount in his own account. It is also alleged that thereafter general body meeting was called to take action against the proposed accused persons, however, proposed accused no. 1 got the settlement done in the absence of complainant no. 1 and without any authorisation to anybody by complainant no. 1. Upon the complaint of complainant, proposed accused no. 1 admitted his offence on 16.09.2014 and stated that he had committed cheating and fraud in the society. On 17.09.2014, proposed accused no. 1 gave his resignation letter to escape from his liability but the same was not accepted. Similarly, proposed accused no. 2 requested for long leave but the same was also declined. It is also alleged that ledger account and list of loan does not tally with each other.
3. The counsel appearing for the complainant has submitted that despite cognizable offence 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 all the documents to ascertain the actual amount involved in the fraud and cheating is in the possession of proposed accused persons and it requires proper detailed investigation also to unearth the modus operandi of the offence. The Ld. Counsel thus submits that the complaint in question clearly discloses the commission of the offences contemplated U/s 420/422/467/468/471/474/477A/120B IPC. It is further submitted by the Ld. Counsel that police officials wants to CC No. 72/1/15 Dilip Kumar v. Satish Chand & Ors. page 2 of 5 shirk their responsibility of registering the FIR by saying that matter is already settled.
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 cheating and forgery committed by accused persons pertaining to accounts, ledgers etc. 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 it being settled. 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 information disclosing a cognizable offence, the police officer concerned cannot embark upon an enquiry as to whether the information laid by the CC No. 72/1/15 Dilip Kumar v. Satish Chand & Ors. page 3 of 5 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: Maurice Nagar is directed to register an FIR. Copy of this order be sent to the SHO, PS: Maurice Nagar to register an FIR in the present case. Copy of the FIR so registered be also supplied to the complainant within next 3 days.
CC No. 72/1/15 Dilip Kumar v. Satish Chand & Ors. page 4 of 5
10. List for Status Report on 22.03.2016.
Pronounced and Signed in the Open Court on 09.03.2016 (Shilpi Jain) MM-01(Central)/THC/Delhi 09.03.2016 CC No. 72/1/15 Dilip Kumar v. Satish Chand & Ors. page 5 of 5