Navendu Agrawal v. State & Anr

TALWANT SINGH, J NOVEMBER 02, 2022/nk

Click here to check corrigendum, if any

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Order pronounced on 02.11.2022 + CRL.REV.P. 115/2022 NAVENDU AGRAWAL ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Dhruva Bhagat, Advocate, DHCLSC with petitioner in person. versus STATE & ANR. ..... Respondents Through: Mr. N.S. Bajwa, APP with SI Kunal Kumar, PS Dwarka, Sector-23. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TALWANT SINGH Talwant Singh, J.: 1. The present revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 16.11.2021 passed by learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (ACMM), South-West District, Dwarka Courts, New Delhi by which the application of the Complainant under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. in Criminal Complaint (CC) No. 8490/2020, registered at Sector-23, Dwarka was dismissed. 1.1 In the said order, the following was noticed:- "On this application report was called from 10 and 10 has reported that on 30.11.2018 on the complaint of Jai Prakash Tehlan an FIR no. 25/2018, under Section 408 IPC was registered in which it was alleged by Jai Prakash Tehlan that the complainant has, after termination of his job, visited the office of Jai Prakash Tehlan and stolen one demand draft and got the same encashed. The charge sheet of that FIR has already been filed. To the other allegations of filing of fake and forged certificates before various authorities, it is stated by the 10 that so far police has not received any complaint from the concerned authorities and the action will be taken as and when the authorities write to them. In subsequent report, it is also reported by 10 that even the authority of EPFO which has filed an application for registration of FIR against the complainant has withdrawn his complaint after reply to show cause notice from the accused was accepted by concerned department and penalty imposed was paid. On last date of hearing, ld. Counsel for complainant Sh. Ranjan Bhatia fairly conceded that complainant has no locus on behalf of these authorities to initiate prosecution or investigation against the accused as the concerned department have imposed penalities at their level wherever required. Ld. Counsel however submitted that the case of complainant qua the action of accused against complainant also discloses cognizable offence as complainant has been framed in a false case after levelling false allegations of theft It is submission of ld. Counsel for complainant that although the complainant can take his defence in the charge sheet filed against complainant but investigation is required to bring the modus operandi of accused on record and to ascertain the involvement of other culprits. It is also submitted by ld. Counsel that it is also established about the conduct of accused as he is habitually involved in criminal activities. The grievance of complainant is that he has been falsely framed on a false FIR and was threatened by the accused. Both these actions do constitute offence but none of them is a cognizable one. Therefore, application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. in a non cognizable offence is not maintainable. Given the fact that the complainant has conceded about his non locus standi with respect to alleged fake and fabricated dealings with different departments, nothing survives for investigation in this case. Further power of this Court to order investigation is restricted to the area under its jurisdiction. The police has not received any complaint from various authorities in different part of country where the accused has submitted alleged fake documents. The complaint of EPFO has already become infructuous as EPFO has imposed penalty which has been paid by the accused. In these circumstances, I do not see any reason to order any investigation in this case. Hence, the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. is dismissed. Complainant is, however, at liberty to proceed under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and summon the witnesses whoever he deems necessary to prove his case. List for PSE, if any, on 14.12.2021". 1.2 This order has been challenged on t