|
The Delhi High Court has recently called for a status report from Delhi police on the plea of businessman RC Bhargava seeking quashing of an FIR. Bhargava is the Chairman of Maruti Suzuki India Limited.
Justice Neena Bansal Krishna issued notice to Delhi Police and sought a response to the plea. Additional Public Prosecutor (APP) Yasir Rauf Ansari, accepted notice on behalf of the State and, on instructions, submitted that the Closure Report has already been submitted before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate. "The Status Report be filed within 15 days," Justice Neena Bansal Krishna ordered on January 24. The matter has been listed on March 25, 2025, for further hearing. Senior advocate Vikas Pahwa along with advocate Prabhav Ralli and Aparna Sharma appeared for Bhargava. Bhargava has moved a Petition through advocate Prabhav Ralli to quash an FIR registered on 03.11.2023 under Sections 466/468/471/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 at Police Station Kotla Mubarakpur, Delhi. The said FIR was registered pursuant to the order of 31.10.2023 passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate on an Application filed by the Complainant Praveen Chandra Shetty. The case of the complainant in his complaint/ Application filed before the Magistrate is that in a consumer dispute litigation between the complainant and Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) there were some discrepancies in the copy of an order of 11.01.2008 of the State Commission, annexed along with the petition filed on behalf of Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. and to this extent, the said order was alleged to have been forged and fabricated by the said company. As a matter of fact, the discrepancies in the said order were not only inadvertent and innocuous in nature, but the certified copy of the actual order dated 11.01.2008 was also filed by the said company before the NCDRC on 23.04.2013, much before the NCDRC passed its final judgment on 18.09.2013, the plea stated. Thus, filing of the same ruled out any mala fide or mens rea on the part of the company to mislead the court or procure an order in its favour by concealing the actual contents of the order, it further stated. It is submitted that the contents of the Complaint under Section 156(3), Cr.P.C. and the consequent FIR fail to disclose any cognizable offence against the Petitioner or the said company and is rather a malicious attempt to give a criminal camouflage to an "inadvertent error" on the part of the counsel, then representing the company before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. It also submitted that the order and the consequent FIR have also been.passed/registered in complete violation of the mandatory procedure laid down in Section 195(1)(b)(ii) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, as per which a complaint on such an allegation could only have been instituted by the court concerned or an officer authorized on behalf of the said court. Further, it is submitted that the Metropolitan Magistrate failed to appreciate that there is no concept of vicarious liability in criminal law and thus, no case was made out against the Petitioner (Chairman of the said company) merely because of his designation when no specific act or omission was attributed to him as per the contents of the Complaint filed by the complainant. While seeking quashing of the FIR, it is submitted that the metropolitan magistrate while disagreeing with the conclusion drawn by the police in the Action Taken Report has also failed to specifically deal with the contents of the ATR and provide specific reasons in support of its decision to reject the findings in the ATR. Therefore said order and the consequent FIR being in violation of the law laid down by this Court liable to be quashed and set aside by this Hon'ble Court on this ground alone, the plea prayed. (ANI)
|
