Anurag Bhatnagar & Anr. vs State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr.

2. In the present case, there is no legal flaw in the order passed by the Magistrate dated 01.07.2005 directing for the registration of the FIR – The order clearly states that the Magistrate is satisfied that the allegations indeed make out a cognizable offence for the purposes of investigation – The said satisfaction recorded by the Magistrate cannot be disturbed in exercise of inherent powers – Therefore, if in pursuance of the said order, the FIR has been registered which discloses a cognizable offence, the same cannot be struck down at this stage – The powers conferred upon the court u/s.482 CrPC or Art.226/227 of the Constitution of India are discretionary in nature and it is not obligatory upon the court to exercise the said inherent power in each and every case, even if the order impugned suffers from minor procedural irregularity, provided there is no miscarriage of justice – Thus, in a case where pursuant to the order of the Magistrate, which is not illegal or without jurisdiction, an FIR has been registered which discloses a cognizable offence and, thereafter, upon investigation, chargesheets have been submitted, there is apparently no justification for the court to exercise discretionary jurisdiction so as to quash the FIR or the order of the Magistrate. [Para 43]

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.156(3) – Whether an application u/s.156(3) CrPC could have been filed without approaching the police authorities:

Held: 1. On a conspicuous reading of the provisions of ss.154,

156 and 190 of the CrPC together, it is clear that an informant who wants to report about a commission of a cognizable offence has to, in the first instance, approach the officer-in-charge of the police station for setting the criminal law into motion by lodging an FIR – However, if such an information is not accepted by the officer-in-charge of the police station and he refuses to record it, the remedy of the informant is to approach the Superintendent of Police concerned – It is only subsequent to availing the above opportunities if he is not successful, he may approach the Magistrate u/s.156(3) 16 CrPC for necessary action or of taking cognizance in accordance with s.190 of the CrPC. [Para 26]

2. In the facts and circumstances of the case, as the informant had directly moved the Magistrate u/s.156(3) of the CrPC without exhausting his statutory remedies, the Magistrate could have avoided taking action on the said application and could have refused to direct for the registration of the FIR – However, as entertaining an application directly by the Magistrate is a mere procedural irregularity and since the Magistrate in a given circumstance is otherwise empowered to pass such an order, the action of the Magistrate may not be illegal or without jurisdiction. [Para 32] Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.156(3) – Whether the order dated 01.07.2005 passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate is an order passed without application of mind, irrespective of the fact that it states that the parties were “heard” and the documents were “perused”:

Held: 1. The order of the Magistrate dated 01.07.2005 clearly states that the Magistrate had “heard” the counsel on the application under Section 156(3) and had “perused” the complaint which reveals commission of a cognizable offence – The fact that the perusal of the application and complaint attached to it, satisfied the Magistrate that it discloses a cognizable offence, is very material and relevant which proves the application of mind by him – Once such a satisfaction has been recorded by the Magistrate, even if wrongly, it is not liable to be interfered with in exercise of inherent powers by the higher courts. [Paras 39 and 40]

2. In these facts and circumstances, for the reason that the Magistrate not only heard the counsel and perused the documents but has even considered the case law cited and has opined that the information discloses a cognizable offence, implies that he has actually applied his mind to the contents of the application before passing the impugned order directing for the registration of the FIR – Therefore, this Court finds no fault with the order of the High Court in refusing to quash the order dated 01.07.2005 on the above score. [Para 41]

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.482 – Whether the High Court can deny quashing of the order dated 01.07.2005 passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate and the FIR registered pursuant to it for the reasons that the investigations have been completed and the chargesheets have been filed against the accused persons:

Held: In the instant case, the High Court has rightly refused to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction so as to interfere with the FIR as the investigations have been completed and the chargesheets have been filed. [Para 44]

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Whether the nature of dispute raised in the offending FIR is of a civil nature and there is no involvement of criminality when both sides have previously lodged FIRs originating from the same MoU dated 11.03.1995:

Held: The allegations in the application moved u/s.156(3) CrPC and the material in support thereof reveals that SHL is contending breach of the conditions of MoU dated 11.03.1995 and that it has been induced and deceived by VLS for entering into the aforesaid MoU – VLS has cheated SHL and its officers by making a false promise which was legally impossible to be carried out – The allegations of breach of conditions of the MoU or of making a false promise by itself may not give rise to any criminal action as no criminality is attached to it – However, there are elements of inducement, criminal conspiracy and cheating which are also borne out from the allegations made in the application and the complaint, which if proved, may amount to commission of an offence – Therefore, once such allegations are made out, it is difficult for the court in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction to interfere with the FIR, only for the reason that some of the disputes are of civil nature which may or may not be having any criminality attached to it – Thus, in the above facts and circumstances, this Court does not consider to go into detail as to the exact nature of disputes involved in the FIR and leave the same to be adjudicated upon by the appropriate court where the chargesheets have been submitted. [Paras 45, 48]

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Whether the present FIR amounts to a successive FIR based upon the same allegations as contained in an earlier FIR No.326/2004 and as such cannot be investigated independently:

Held: In the case at hand, as previously stated, FIR No.326/2004 was lodged at Police Station, Connaught Place, New Delhi, whereas the subsequent FIR No.380/2005 was lodged at Police Station, Defence Colony, New Delhi – Both the FIRs may be based on similar allegations but they are not virtually the same – The allegations are different and even the parties against whom the FIRs were filed are not the same – Therefore, such a subsequent FIR may be maintainable but this Court refrains from making any final comment on the above aspect as no such finding on this aspect has been returned by the court below. [Para 57] Constitution of India – Art.226/227 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.482 – Powers of the court – Purpose of: Held: The powers vested in the court either u/s.482 CrPC or Art.226/227 of the Constitution of India are not for the purposes of appreciating the evidence or examining the correctness of the evidence collected during investigation to record a different conclusion other than recorded by the Magistrate that he is satisfied that a cognizable offence has been disclosed in the application/complaint – Moreover, when information disclosing commission of cognizable offence is conveyed to the police station, the officerin-charge of the police station cannot refuse to register the FIR – Therefore, if an FIR has not been registered for any reason at the police station and the Magistrate is satisfied that the information discloses a cognizable offence, he can certainly direct for its registration obviously on compliance of the provisions of s.154(3) of the CrPC – In the instant case, this is exactly what has been done by the Magistrate by way of his order dated 01.07.2005 though ignoring the remedy u/s.154(3) of the CrPC which amounts to mere procedural irregularity. [Para 40]