Delhi District Court
Rajesh Kumar vs State on 5 December, 2016
-: 1 :- Rajesh Kumar v. The State & Anr.
CR No: 440517/2016
IN THE COURT OF SHRI HARISH DUDANI
SPECIAL JUDGE, (PC ACT) (CBI)1
DISTRICT COURTS(SW), DWARKA, NEW DELHI.
In the matter of :
CR No. : 440517/2016
Rajesh Kumar
S/o Sh. Balraj Singh,
R/o : Plot No. 12, Dharampura Extn.,
Old Kakrola, Dwarka Road,
Najafgarh, New Delhi.
......... Appellant
VERSUS
1. State
2. Devender Singh
s/o Sh. Ajit Singh
R/o : D-87, Maksudabad Colony,
Najafgarh, New Delhi
.........Respondents
CR No. 440517/2016
Date of Institution 30.09.2016
Reserved for orders on 23.11.2016
Judgment announced on 05.12.2016
JUDGMENT
1. This revision petition under section 397 CR No: 440517/2016 Page No.1 of 25
-: 2 :- Rajesh Kumar v. The State & Anr.
CR No: 440517/2016 Cr.PC is directed against order dated 21.07.2016 passed by Ld. CMM, South-West, Dwarka Courts, New Delhi whereby the Ld. C.M.M. has been pleased to direct the police to register an FIR on the basis of the complaint of the complainant. Briefly stated relevant facts for disposal of the revision petition are as under :-
2. The revisionist has filed the present revision petition stating therein that the revisionist and the respondent No.2 were friends from childhood and respondent No.2 wanted to start a business and requested the revisionist to join him in the business as an investor as the respondent No.2. did not have sufficient finances. In the year 2006, the revisionist and the respondent No.2 started the partnership business of electrical construction in the name of "New India Power" and the said partnership started giving handsome returns. In the year 2009, the respondent No.2 met with a serious accident and thereafter he did not take any interest in the business and respondent No.2 committed various frauds and embezzled huge amount and properties and partnership firm came to an end and all the disputes and differences were resolved in January 2016 by a MOU. Thereafter respondent No.2 in CR No: 440517/2016 Page No.2 of 25
-: 3 :- Rajesh Kumar v. The State & Anr.
CR No: 440517/2016 place of acting upon the said MOU lodged false and frivolous complaint with the police against the revisionist and others, which was duly enquired by the police however nothing adverse was found against the revisionist and others. Thereafter, respondent No.2 filed a complaint against the revisionist and others before the Ld. CMM, who vide impugned order was pleased to direct to register an FIR on the basis of the complaint lodged by the respondent No.2.
3. In the revision petition, the revisionist has pleaded that the impugned order dated 21.09.2016 passed by Ld. CMM is bad in law and against the principles of natural justice and is against the material available on record. It is further stated that all the disputes between the parties have been resolved through MOU executed between the parties. It is further stated that the motive of the respondent No.2 is only to extort money from the revisionist and he is misusing the process of law. In the complaint, respondent No.2 has referred to various incidences and the same have been equired by the police and same were found false and if respondent No.2 had any grievance, remedy under section 200 Cr. PC is open to him and order for CR No: 440517/2016 Page No.3 of 25
-: 4 :- Rajesh Kumar v. The State & Anr.
CR No: 440517/2016 registration of FIR is against the well settled proposition of law. It is stated that Ld. CMM has passed the impugned order without considering the status report filed by the police. It is further stated that impugned order dated 21.09.2016 is liable to set aside.
4. I have heard Ld. Counsel for the parties and perused the records.
5. The complainant (respondent No. 2) had filed a complaint under section 200 Cr. PC for the offences under section 406,420,468,471 & 120B IPC stating therein that the accused No.1(revisionist herein) was known to the complainant(respondent No.2 herein) and he developed friendly relations with the complainant(respondent No.2 herein) and that accused No.1 Rajesh Kumar(revisionist herein) is a constable in Delhi Police and accused No. 2 Kuldeep Singh is real chacha of accused No.1 Rajesh Kumar and he is also working in Delhi Police and accused No. 3 Devender Kaushik is friend of accused No. 1 Rajesh Kumar and he is also working in Delhi Police. It is further stated that by the complainant(respondent No.2 herein) in his complaint that the complainant(respondent No.2 CR No: 440517/2016 Page No.4 of 25
-: 5 :- Rajesh Kumar v. The State & Anr.
CR No: 440517/2016 herein) was interested in starting a business pertaining to electricity supply, maintenance and any other job and accused no. 1 Rajesh Kumar(revisionist herein) asked the complainant (respondent No.2 herein) to be a partner and they prepared a partnership deed on 30.12.2005 and started the business in the name of "New India Power" and a large amount of money was invested in the business by the complainant(respondent No.2 herein) and accused No. 1(revisionist herein) had not invested any money in the said firm. During this period, property bearing No. Plot No.12, (measuring 318 Sq. yards), Dharampura-Ist, Old Kakrola Road, Near Tura Mandi, Najafgarh, New Delhi-43 was purchased by the complainant (respondent No.2 herein) in his name and during the said period the complainant (respondent No.2 herein) also invested/booked three shops in Eros Metro Mall, Sector 14, Delhi in the name of said partnership firm by making investment with M/s Ajay Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. at Eros Corporate Tower, 8th Floor, Nehru Place, New Delhi. On 2.03.2009, the complainant (responded No.2 herein) met with an accident and received multiple injuries and multiple fractures on the whole body. Thereafter, accused No.1 Rajesh Kumar(revisionist herein) took CR No: 440517/2016 Page No.5 of 25
-: 6 :- Rajesh Kumar v. The State & Anr.
CR No: 440517/2016 all the documents related to the said firm alongwith the blank cheques.
6. It is further stated by the complainant in his complaint under section 200 Cr.PC that on 01.04.2011, accused No.1 Rajesh Kumar(revisionist herein) contacted the complainant (responded No.2 herein) and requested that accused No.1 Rajesh Kumar(revisionist herein) is quiting from the said firm and his brother-in-law, namely, Sunil Kumar Ruhil will enter as a partner in place of him. On this, a retirement-cum-Admission-cum-Partnership Deed was prepared and executed in which accused no.1 Rajesh Kumar (revisionist herein) left the partnership firm and Sunil Kumar Ruhil entered as partner. In March, 2015, the complainant (responded No.2 herein) visited the office of Ajay Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. At Erose Corporate Tower, Nehru Place and came to know that accused no.1 Rajesh Kumar (revisionist herein) had moved an application to the said company objecting the transferring of shops in the name of firm. Complainant (responded No.2 herein) came to know that on 15.04.2014 accused no.1 Rajesh Kumar (revisionist herein) gave a letter to Ajay Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. on the letterhead of New India CR No: 440517/2016 Page No.6 of 25
-: 7 :- Rajesh Kumar v. The State & Anr.
CR No: 440517/2016 Power stating that six shops at Eros Metro Mall, Dwarka Sector 14, Delhi [three booked by New India Power and three booked in the name of accused no.1 Rajesh Kumar (revisionist herein) by giving forged cheques/DD] be alloted in the name of accused no.1 Rajesh Kumar (revisionist herein) and the name of the complainant (responded No.2 herein) be removed. The letter dated 15.04.2014 is forged and the signatures of the complainant (responded No.2 herein) on the same are forged. Since, accused no.1 Rajesh Kumar (revisionist herein) has been removed from the firm on 1.04.2011, he was not authorised to issue the letter on the letterhead of New India Power showing him as a partner and accused no.1 Rajesh Kumar (revisionist herein) has forged the signatures of complainant (responded No.2 herein) to cause wrongful gain to himself and to cause wrongful loss to the complainant (responded No.2 herein).
7. It is further stated by complainant (responded No.2 herein) in his complaint that complainant came to know that accused no.1 Rajesh Kumar (revisionist herein), Kuldeep Singh and Devender Kaushik with other persons had cheated the complainant (responded No.2 herein) CR No: 440517/2016 Page No.7 of 25
-: 8 :- Rajesh Kumar v. The State & Anr.
CR No: 440517/2016 by forging his signatures on a large number of documents. The complainant (responded No.2 herein) also came to know that accused no.1 Rajesh Kumar (revisionist herein) issued three cheques bearing No.019973 dated 15.10.2011 for Rs.32,51,000/-, No.019974 dated 15.11.2011 for Rs.32,51,000/- (both of which were encashed) and cheque No.019975 dated 15.12.2011 for Rs.39,30,000/- (which was not encashed) of ICICI Bank, Najafgarh, New Delhi to Ajay Enterprises and booked 3 shops in the name of accused no.1 Rajesh Kumar (revisionist herein). On 09.04.2014, accused no.1 Rajesh Kumar (revisionist herein) forged the signatures of the complainant (responded No.2 herein) and had issued DD for Rs.35 lacs in the name of M/s Ajay Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. which was returned and cancelled. On 26.04.2014 accused no.1 Rajesh Kumar (revisionist herein) presented cheque no.20133 for Rs.35 lacs and got prepared DD and the said DD was given to Ajay Enterprises Pvt. Ltd as next payment of 3 shops booked by accused No.1 Rajesh Kumar in his name and the complainant (responded No.2 herein) neither issued nor signed the said cheques and accused no.1 Rajesh Kumar (revisionist herein) has forged the signatures of the complainant (responded No.2 CR No: 440517/2016 Page No.8 of 25
-: 9 :- Rajesh Kumar v. The State & Anr.
CR No: 440517/2016 herein) on the said cheque. Accused no.1 Rajesh Kumar (revisionist herein) issued a letter dated 15.04.2014 on the letterhead of New India Power and forged the signatures of the complainant (responded No.2 herein) stating that all six shops booked with Ajay Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. at Eros Metro Mall, Sector 14, Dwarka, be transferred in the name of accused no.1 Rajesh Kumar (revisionist herein). Accused no.1 Rajesh Kumar (revisionist herein) and his associates prepared a set of documents i.e. GPA, Agreement to Sell, Affidavit, Receipt, etc. in respect of Plot No. 12 (measuring 318 Sq. Yards), Dharampura -Ist, near Tura Mandi, Najafgarh, New Delhi by forging the signatures of the complainant (responded No.2 herein). Accused no.1 Rajesh Kumar (revisionist herein) and his associates took a huge amount from the accounts of the complainant (responded No.2 herein) by forging the signatures of the complainant (responded No.2 herein). It is stated that on 20.5.2011 accused No.1 Rajesh Kumar (revisionist herein) obtained a DD in the sum of Rs.10 lacs by committing forgery from the Account No.403501010100156 Union Bank of India and purchased a policy of Union Bank of India KBC Equity Fund in his name and thereafter, on 28.10.2011 he withdrew the said amount from the CR No: 440517/2016 Page No.9 of 25
-: 10 :- Rajesh Kumar v. The State & Anr.
CR No: 440517/2016 said policy. On 13.06.2011, accused no.1 Rajesh Kumar (revisionist herein) opened an account No.403501010100234 in the name of partnership firm M/s New India Power at Union Bank, Anand Niketan, New Delhi and did transactions in the name of said firm. On 17.10.2011, accused no.1 Rajesh Kumar (revisionist herein) encashed a cheque of Rs.10 lacs from one Shri Bagrawat Singh Yadav and on 21.02.2012 paid a sum of Rs.10 lacs by cheque to Shri Bagrawat Singh Yadav from the account of said partnership firm M/s New India Power at HDFC Bank, Najafgarh. Accused no.1 Rajesh Kumar (revisionist herein) and his associates transferred Rs.30 lacs from the account no. 403501010100156 Union Bank, Anand Niketan, New Delhi to the account 403501010100234 of New India Power and withdrew the cash from the said account.
8. It is further stated by the complainant (respondent No. 2 herein) in his complainant under section 200 Cr. PC that in the year 2010, the firm of the complainant i.e. M/s New India Power gave a loan of Rs.4,20,00,000/- to Ashok Ruhil, Director of Power Con Electrical and in return, accused No.1 Rajesh Kumar (revisionist herein) got sale deed of 2 acre agriculture land in village Kansala, District CR No: 440517/2016 Page No.10 of 25
-: 11 :- Rajesh Kumar v. The State & Anr.
CR No: 440517/2016 Rohtak, Haryana in the name of wife of Devender Kaushik without the consent of the complainant (respondent No. 2 herein).
9. It is further stated in the complaint of the complainant that in the year 2012 accused No.1 Rajesh Kumar (revisionist herein) purchased two acre land in Achina Tal, Distt. Charkhi Dadri, Haryana by making the payment from the withdrawal of the said amount from the account of firm by forging the signatures of the complainant(respondent No. 2 herein). It is further stated that in the year 2012 accused No.1 Rajesh Kumar (revisionist herein) purchased a plot no.209 measuring 300 sq yards on 40 ft road, P Block, New Roshan Pura, Najafgarh, New Delhi in the name of his real uncle Kuldeep Singh by making the payment from the withdrawal of the amount from the account of the said firm by forging the signatures of the complainant(respondent No. 2 herein).
10. It is further stated in the complaint under section 200 Cr. PC that accounts of the firm are to be verified / inspected as all accused persons have forged the signatures of the complainant CR No: 440517/2016 Page No.11 of 25
-: 12 :- Rajesh Kumar v. The State & Anr.
CR No: 440517/2016 (respondent No. 2 herein) and got the cheque books issued from ICICI bank and the accused persons also forged the signatures of the complainant on the cheques and have taken out a large amount of money form the said account. The accused persons may have forged the signatures of the complainant(respondent No.2 herein) on the cheques of HDFC Bank account, Najafgarh Branch, Delhi and Account No.403501010100156 Union Bank of India, Anand Niketan and have taken a large number of money from the said account of the firm. It is further stated that a complaint was made to the SHO, PS Najafgarh on 28.09.2015 vide DD No. 30A but the police did not take any action. It is further stated that on 20.01.2016 Shri Sunil Lakra called the complainant(respondent No.2 herein) and Sunil Lakra alongwith Amit Kumar who is SI in Delhi Police visited the house of the complainant (respondent No.2 herein) and stated that they are friends of accused No.1 Rajesh Kumar (revisionist herein) and wanted to settle the matter. They also threatened the complainant(respondent No. 2 herein) that they have link in police and the complainant(respondent No. 2 herein) cannot do anything against the accused No.1 Rajesh Kumar (revisionist herein). Sunil Lakra and Amit Kumar stated that they will CR No: 440517/2016 Page No.12 of 25
-: 13 :- Rajesh Kumar v. The State & Anr.
CR No: 440517/2016 arrange the compromise in such a way that accused No.1 Rajesh Kumar (revisionist herein) will give two shops of prime location to the complainant (respondent No. 2 herein) and the complainant (respondent No. 2 herein) will give the said company to Rahul Saini. It is stated that said Sunil Lakra and Amit Kumar told that they will keep the original settlement documents and will not give even photocopy to any of the party and if accused No.1 Rajesh Kumar (revisionist herein) executes the sale deed of two shops in favour of the complainant (respondent No. 2 herein) then only they will give the original settlement documents to him and if the accused No.1 Rajesh Kumar (revisionist herein) did not execute the sale deed of two shops in favour of the complainant(respondent No. 2 herein) they will destroy all the settlement documents. It is stated that under pressure of Sunil Kumar and Amit Kumar and for keeping peace in mind, the complainant (respondent No. 2 herein) agreed to settlement offered by Sunil Lakra and Amit Kumar.
11. It is stated in the complaint under section 200Cr.PC that in Dwarka Court the complainant(respondent No.2 herein) was made to sign Memorandum of Understanding, Partnership CR No: 440517/2016 Page No.13 of 25
-: 14 :- Rajesh Kumar v. The State & Anr.
CR No: 440517/2016 Deed and Dissolution Deed with the assurance that Sunil Lakra and Amit Kumar will keep the original documents of settlement and will not give even photocopy to any of the party and if Rajesh Kumar executes the Sale Deed of two shops then they will give the original documents to him and a self attested photocopy to the complainant. Thereafter, when the complainant(respondent No.2 herein) told Sunil Lakra and Amit Kumar that accused No.1 Rajesh Kumar (revisionist herein) is not executing the title documents of even two shops they stated that they have destroyed the original Memorandum of Understanding, Partnership Deed and Dissolution Deed. That the complainant(respondent No.2 herein) has to come to know that accused persons are having the said Memorandum of Understanding, Partnership Deed and Dissolution Deed which clearly shows that this settlement was a pre-plan of Sunil Lakra and Amit Kumar.
12. The contention of the Ld. Counsel for the revisionist is that in para 21 of the amended complaint under section 200 Cr. PC filed before the trial court, the complainant has stated regarding execution of the Memorandum of Understanding, which will show that the dispute between the CR No: 440517/2016 Page No.14 of 25
-: 15 :- Rajesh Kumar v. The State & Anr.
CR No: 440517/2016 parties is of civil nature. It is further contended on behalf of the revisionist that even if any cheating, as alleged, has taken place, the same has been done with the firm M/s New Power India and there is no offence committed against the complainant (respondent No.2 herein). It is contended that in the impugned order dated 21.09.2016, Ld. CMM has referred to the allegations of the complainant that in June 2016, the associates of the accused, who are also officials of Delhi Police approached the complainant for settlement of the matter and obtained the signatures of the complainant on Memorandum of Understanding, Partnership Deed and Dissolution Deed with the assurance that accused Rajesh Kumar will hand over two shops situated at prime location to the complainant (respondent No.2 herein) which shows that the dispute between the parties is regarding the shops which is of civil nature and the complaint does not disclose any cognizable offence and the same is liable to be dismissed.
13. Ld. Addl. PP for the State/respondent(R1) has contended that the complaint discloses commission of cognizable offences and there is no infirmity in the impugned order dated 21.09.2016.
CR No: 440517/2016 Page No.15 of 25-: 16 :- Rajesh Kumar v. The State & Anr.
CR No: 440517/2016
14. Ld. Counsel for the respondent(R2) has contended that in the complaint under section 200 Cr.PC, there are specific allegations of commission of cheating and forgery by accused (revisionist herein) by forging the signatures of the complainant on various documents and transferring of huge amount of money and the same discloses commission of cognizable offences and requires investigation by police. Ld. Counsel for the respondent(R2) has further contended that there is no force in the contention of the Ld. Counsel for the revisionist that there is dispute of two shops and that the dispute between the parties is of civil nature. Ld. Counsel for the respondent(R2) has contended that complainant (respondent No.2) has made specific allegations to the effect that complainant and accused(A1) had entered into the partnership business and after the accident of the complainant, accused(A1) forged the signatures of the complainant on various documents and caused wrongful loss to the complainant and wrongful gain to himself. It is further contended on behalf of respondent No.2 that the complainant has made specific allegations that after dissolution of the partnership business in the year 2011, despite his CR No: 440517/2016 Page No.16 of 25
-: 17 :- Rajesh Kumar v. The State & Anr.
CR No: 440517/2016 retirement from partnership business, accused no.1(revisionist herein) represented himself as partner of M/s New India Power and withdrew huge amount from the partnership account and also got transferred the shops, which were booked by the money of the partnership business, in his name and thereby committed the offence of forgery, cheating and of fabrication of documents and there is no infirmity in the impugned order dated 21.09.2016.
15. The main thrust of the arguments of the Ld. Counsel for the revisionist is that the complaint discloses civil nature of dispute and as per the complaint, the parties have also entered into MOU dated 20.01.2016 as per which business of the firm has been sold by the complainant to Rahul Saini. However, the plea, as raised by the counsel for the respondent no. 2 is that the allegations in totality will show that various acts of forgery and cheating have been committed which require investigation by police and the MoU has been got signed from the complainant in fraudulent manner and police has not conducted the investigation on the complaint which was given to the SHO, PS Najafgarh as the accused persons are police officials.
CR No: 440517/2016 Page No.17 of 25-: 18 :- Rajesh Kumar v. The State & Anr.
CR No: 440517/2016
16. In the impugned order dated 21.09.2016, Ld. CMM has observed that status report was filed by the police to the effect that the matter has been settled as per MoU dated 21.01.2016 and the business of the firm has been sold to Rahul Saini.
17. The perusal of the Status Report dated 31.05.2016 filed by police before the court of Ld. CMM shows that police has referred to various allegations of forgery and cheating as made in the complaint. In the Status Report, police has mentioned that they have not conducted any inquiry on the said allegations. In the Status Report dated 31.05.2016, it is mentioned that both the parties alongwith their friends and relatives were called and they stated that they will negotiate the matter amongst themselves and will settle the dispute. In the conclusion of the status report dated 31.05.2016, the police has mentioned that there are many allegations in the complaint which will take about two months time for conducting preliminary investigation. The Status Report dated 31.05.2016 filed by the police before the court of Ld. CMM clearly shows that police has not investigated into the various allegations of forgery and cheating, etc. as made by the complainant.
CR No: 440517/2016 Page No.18 of 25-: 19 :- Rajesh Kumar v. The State & Anr.
CR No: 440517/2016
18. Section 156 IPC reads as under:
156. Police officer's power to investigate cognizable case.- (1) Any officer in charge of a police station may, without the order of a Magistrate, investigate any cognizable case which a Court having jurisdiction over the local area within the limits of such station would have power to inquire into or try under the provisions of Chapter XIII.
(2) No proceeding of a police officer in any such case shall at any stage be called in question on the ground that the case was one which such officer was not empowered under this section to investigate.
(3) Any Magistrate empowered under section 190 may order such an investigation as above- mentioned.
19. The perusal of the complaint filed by the complainant(respondent herein) reveals that complainant has made various allegations of cheating and forgery against the accused persons and same discloses commission of cognizable offences, which requires investigation to be conducted by police for taking appropriate action against the wrong doers as per law.
CR No: 440517/2016 Page No.19 of 25-: 20 :- Rajesh Kumar v. The State & Anr.
CR No: 440517/2016
20. In Lalita Kumar v. Govt. of UP & Ors. Writ Petition (Criminal) No.68 of 2008, Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has been pleased to observe that:
91) In Madhu Bala (supra), this court held:
6. ...............
9. ..............
10. From the foregoing discussion it is evident that whenever a Magistrate directs an investigation on a complaint the police has to register a cognizable case on that complaint treating the same as the FIR and comply with the requirements of the above Rules. It, therefore, passes our comprehension as to how the direction of a Magistrate asking the police to register a case makes an order of investigation under Section 156(3) legally unsustainable. Indeed, even if a Magistrate does not pass a direction to register a case, still in view of the provisions of Section 156(1) of the Code which empowers the police to investigate into a cognizable case and the Rules framed under the Indian Police Act, 1861 it (the police) is duty-bound to formally register a case and then investigate into the same. The provisions of the Code, therefore, do not in any way stand in the way of a CR No: 440517/2016 Page No.20 of 25
-: 21 :- Rajesh Kumar v. The State & Anr.
CR No: 440517/2016 Magistrate to direct the police to register a case at the police station and then investigate into the same. In our opinion when an order for investigation under Section 156(3) of the Code is to be made the proper direction to the police would be to register a case at the police station treating the complaint as the first information report and investigate into the same.
.................................... .................................... ....................................
111) In view of the aforesaid discussion, we hold:
i) Registration of FIR is mandatory under Section 154 of the Code, if the information discloses commission of a cognizable offence and no preliminary inquiry is permissible in such a situation.
ii) If the information received does not disclose a cognizable offence but indicates the necessity for an inquiry, a preliminary inquiry may be conducted only to ascertain whether cognizable offence is disclosed or not.
iii) If the inquiry discloses the commission of a cognizable offence, the FIR must be CR No: 440517/2016 Page No.21 of 25
-: 22 :- Rajesh Kumar v. The State & Anr.
CR No: 440517/2016 registered. In cases where preliminary inquiry ends in closing the complaint, a copy of the entry of such closure must be supplied to the first informant forthwith and not later than one week. It must disclose reasons in brief for closing the complaint and not proceeding further.
iv) The police officer cannot avoid his duty of registering offence if cognizable offence is disclosed. Action must be taken against erring officers who do not register the FIR if information received by him discloses a cognizable offence.
v) The scope of preliminary inquiry is not to verify the veracity or otherwise of the information received but only to ascertain whether the information reveals any cognizable offence.
vi) As to what type and in which cases preliminary inquiry is to be conducted will depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. The category of cases in which preliminary inquiry may be made are as under:
a) Matrimonial disputes/family disputes
b) Commercial offences
c) Medical negligence cases
d) Corruption cases CR No: 440517/2016 Page No.22 of 25
-: 23 :- Rajesh Kumar v. The State & Anr.
CR No: 440517/2016
e) Cases where there is abnormal delay/laches in initiating criminal prosecution, for example, over 3 months delay in reporting the matter without satisfactorily explaining the reasons for delay.
The aforesaid are only illustrations and not exhaustive of all conditions which may warrant preliminary inquiry.
vii) While ensuring and protecting the rights of the accused and the complainant, a preliminary inquiry should be made time bound and in any case it should not exceed 7 days. The fact of such delay and the causes of it must be reflected in the General Diary entry.
viii) Since the General Diary/Station Diary/Daily Diary is the record of all information received in a police station, we direct that all information relating to cognizable offences, whether resulting in registration of FIR or leading to an inquiry, must be mandatorily and meticulously reflected in the said Diary and the decision to conduct a preliminary inquiry must also be reflected, as mentioned above.
21. In the impugned order dated 21.09.2016, Ld. CMM has been pleased to observe:
CR No: 440517/2016 Page No.23 of 25-: 24 :- Rajesh Kumar v. The State & Anr.
CR No: 440517/2016 It is evident that the complaint discloses number of allegations relating to forgery made in the name of the complainant, misappropriation of funds of the partnership firm, criminal breach of trust in respect of funds and documents of the firm, cheating etc. It has also been mentioned that the documents of the firm were in possession of the accused No.1 and he had done number of transactions on behalf of the partnership firm by forging the signatures of the complainant after his resignation in April 2011. Thus, this court is of the view that police investigation is required to be conducted to unearth the truth and to fix the culpability of wrong doers. Hence, application under section 156(3) Cr. PC. is allowed.
22. The impugned order dated 21.09.2016 by which application under section 156(3) Cr. PC has been allowed and SHO, PS Najafgarh has been directed to register an FIR on the basis of complaint of complainant, is based on sound legal principles and does not suffer from any infirmity. The revision petition is deviod of merits and the same is dismissed.
23. TCR be sent back along with copy of this CR No: 440517/2016 Page No.24 of 25
-: 25 :- Rajesh Kumar v. The State & Anr.
CR No: 440517/2016 judgment.
Revision file be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in the open Court (HARISH DUDANI) today on 05.12.2016 Special Judge (PC Act) CBI-I Dwarka Courts, New Delhi.
CR No: 440517/2016 Page No.25 of 25