TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (7) TMI 1631
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hereby petitions seeking quashing of the order dated 3rd June, 2004 passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi and the criminal proceedings pursuant to the FIR No.326 of 2004 were refused on the same and identical grounds as contained in the above referred judgment passed in Crl.M.C.2833 of 2005 and Crl.M.C.3244 of 2005. 3. Since, in all the above SLPs, the facts and contentions are similar, they are being considered and decided by this Court vide common judgment by taking SLP(Crl.) No.18084 of 2024 as the lead case and by narrating the facts as stated therein. 4. Heard Shri Ranjit Kumar, Shri Jayant Bhushan, and Shri Rajat Nair, learned counsel for the parties. 5. The short question arising for consideration in Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.18084 of 2024 is whether the High Court in exercise of its power under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure In short 'CrPC' or under Article 226/227 of the Constitution is justified in refusing to quash the FIR No.380/2005 registered at Police Station, Defence Colony, Delhi, under Sections 420, 120-B and 34 of the Indian Penal Code In short 'IPC' and the order dated 01.07.2005 passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi, d....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....fund security amount of Rs.10 crore to VLS along with interest from the date of deposit till payment. The said award of the arbitral tribunal is a subject matter of challenge before the High Court of Delhi under Section 34 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996. 9. Some time in the year 2000, VLS discovered fraudulent conduct on part of SHL and its directors. It, therefore, filed a complaint on 14.02.2000 leading to the registration of FIR No.90/2000 at Police Station, Connaught Place, against SHL under Sections 406, 409, 420, 421, 422, 467, 468, 471 and 477-A of the IPC. VLS filed another complaint on 19.02.2002 leading to FIR No.99/2002 again at Police Station, Connaught Place, against some of the directors and office bearers of the SHL under Sections 406, 420, 424, 467, 468, 471, 477 and 120-B of IPC alleging that approximately Rs.15 crore was siphoned off by them from the accounts of SHL. A third complaint was filed by VLS on 27.02.2002 on the basis of which FIR No.148/2002 was registered at Police Station, Defence Colony, under Sections 384, 406, 409, 467, 471 and 120-B of the IPC against some of the office bearers of the SHL. 10. It is alleged that in retaliation to th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sp; a speaking order passed after due application of mind. The dispute raised in the FIR cannot at this stage be held to be a civil dispute only as VLS itself had filed FIRs in connection with the disobedience of the same MoU which establishes that VLS accepts involvement of some criminal element in the violation of the MoU giving rise to the disputes. The issue whether the dispute arising between the parties out of the same MoU is of a civil nature or involves criminality cannot be adjudicated at this stage without the parties having led evidence. Moreover, since the investigations in pursuance of the impugned FIR have been completed and chargesheets have been filed against the accused persons, there is no reason or justification to interfere with the FIR in exercise of powers under Section 482 CrPC or Article 226/227 of the Constitution. Submissions of the Parties : 15. On behalf of the VLS, it has been argued that the lodging of the instant FIR is a clear abuse of process of the court. Therefore, the High Court ought to have invoked its inherent jurisdiction to quash the said FIR. The Metropolitan Magistrate has ordered for registration of the FI....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....oU dated 11.03.1995; and (v) 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. 18. Now, having outlined the points for determination, we consider it appropriate to deal with the above points serially/sequentially. Point (i): Whether an application under Section 156(3) CrPC could have been filed without approaching the police authorities? 19. It is a settled law that one of the modes for setting criminal law into motion is by giving information to the police authorities in accordance with Section 154 CrPC whereupon if a cognizable offence is prima facie made out to the satisfaction of the police, it may investigate into the offence even without the permission of the Magistrate. The information so given is ordinarily called the "First Information", though this terminology has not been used under the CrPC. 20. Section 154 of CrPC, inter alia, provides that information relating to the commission of a cognizable offence can be given orally or in writing to the officer-in-charge of the police station and if it is gi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r than the police officer or on his own motion. 26. On a conspicuous reading of the provisions of Sections 154, 156 and 190 of the CrPC together, it is crystal 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 under Section 156(3) CrPC for necessary action or of taking cognizance in accordance with Section 190 of the CrPC. 27. In the instant case, a bare perusal of the application filed under Section 156(3) of the CrPC dated 01.07.2005 would reveal that the informant therein had simply stated that an offence under Sections 420, 120-B and 34 of the IPC have been committed and that the informant had approached the "police officials" several times but in vain, but the application is complet....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pproaching him under Section 156(3) of the CrPC. 32. In the facts and circumstances of the case, as the informant had directly moved the Magistrate under Section 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. 33. To sum up, the Magistrate ought not to ordinarily entertain an application under Section 156(3) CrPC directly unless the informant has availed and exhausted his remedies provided under Section 154(3) CrPC, but as the Magistrate is otherwise competent under Section 156(3) CrPC to direct the registration of an FIR if the allegations in the application/complaint discloses the commission of a cognizable offence, we are of the opinion that the order so passed by the Magistrate would not be without jurisdiction and would not stand vitiated on this count. 34. The....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Section 156 (3) of the CrPC have subsequently been interpreted and it has been held that the Magistrate while directing for registering an FIR has to apply his independent mind based upon legal principles and the order so passed has to be a reasoned order. The provision so interpreted exists from its inception. Merely because a judgment by the Court has simply interpreted and reiterated the established principles of law that ought to have been into practice, it would not mean that such principles would be applicable prospectively only from the date of its interpretation. The interpretation made later on would not mean that the provision had a different meaning prior to its above interpretation. Therefore, the High Court manifestly erred in holding that at the relevant time there was no requirement of application of mind and for passing a speaking order, as the judgments of the higher courts holding otherwise have been penned down subsequently. In other words, the provision as it stands and interpreted, requires passing of the speaking order on application of mind from the very beginning. Moreover, a speaking order is a part and an essential component of the principles of natural ju....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mation discloses a cognizable offence, he can certainly direct for its registration obviously on compliance of the provisions of Section 154(3) of the CrPC. This is exactly what has been done by the Magistrate by way of his order dated 01.07.2005 though ignoring the remedy under Section 154(3) of the CrPC which, as said earlier, amounts to mere procedural irregularity. 41. 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, we find no fault with the order of the High Court in refusing to quash the order dated 01.07.2005 on the above score. Point (iii): 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? 42. We are cons....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ions 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. 46. It is well settled by a catena of decisions of this Court, especially in State of Haryana & Ors. vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal Singh & Ors. 1992 SCC (CRI) 426, that the discretion to quash an FIR at a nascent stage has to be exercised with great caution and circumspection. In this connection, it would be beneficial....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., the present FIR No.380/2005 is upon the same information and allegation as contained in the earlier FIR No.326/2004 but still different. Both the FIRs are by SHL through its authorized representative and both are against VLS and its officials which are mostly common but there is some variance in the allegations and the parties. 51. The earlier FIR No.326/2004 was registered at Police Station, Connaught Place, under Sections 406, 409, 420, 424 and 122-B IPC while the impugned FIR No.380/2005 was registered at Police Station, Defence Colony, again alleging the breach of MoU and it is ex-facie evident that SHL deliberately chose to lodge the second FIR 380/2005 at a different police station as a camouflage as the earlier proceedings were under an order of stay of the High Court. 52. Section 300 CrPC debars a second trial. This is based on the public policy that no one should be harassed twice for the same offence by putting him to trial again and again. 53. In Jatinder Singh & Ors. vs. Ranjit Kaur 2001 (2) SCC 570, the issue was whether a first complaint having been dismissed for default, could a second complaint be maintained. This Court considered the matter and observed that t....