Final Order 9

Order Details: COPY OF JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS
Pdf Text: 43
CC No.1262-2025
VINOD KUMAR SHARMA Vs. PANACEA INSTITUTE OF REDIOLOGY
AND MEDICAL SERVICES
/0 (Subzi Mandi)
22.04.2026
Present: Ld. Proxy Counsel for the complainant.
Be passed over till 4.30 p.m. for orders on application u/s 175(3)
BNSS.
At 05:15 pm
Present: None.
Vide this order, I shall decide the application filed by the complainant
u/S 175 (3) BNSS seeking issuance of direction to the SHO concerned to register
FIR against the proposed accused/alleged for alleged offences relating to forgery,
fabrication of documents, perjury and misuse of judicial process.
Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the complainant was
arrayed as an accused in Complaint Case C.T. No. 6106/2020 under Sections
138/141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, titled “Embee Diagnostic Pvt. Ltd. vs.
Focus Imaging & Research Centre Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.”, which is pending
adjudication before the Court of Ld. JMFC (Central) (NI Act), Tis Hazari Courts,
Delhi. The complainant was one of the directors of the accused company in the
said case. It is submitted that proposed accused no. 1 is a private limited company,
while proposed accused no. 2 Dr. Prashant Sarin is the Managing Director of
Focus Imaging & Research Centre Pvt. Ltd. as well as Medical Director (now
Director) of proposed accused no. 1 company. The other proposed accused persons
are also stated to be directors or associated with the said company. It has been
submitted by the complainant that he had authorized proposed accused no. 2
-- 1 of 6 --
through a board resolution dated 21.07.2021 to represent Focus Imaging &
Research Centre Pvt. Ltd. as well as the complainant in the above-mentioned
complaint case and pursuant to the said authorization, proposed accused no. 2
engaged an advocate to represent the complainant in the said proceedings.
However, it is alleged that from July onwards the counsel engaged by proposed
accused no. 2 stopped appearing before the Court of Ld. JMFC (Central), Tis
Hazari Courts in the said matter as well as in other connected matters, which
allegedly resulted in adverse orders against the complainant. The complainant has
further alleged that the proposed accused persons, particularly proposed accused
no. 2 in connivance with other proposed accused persons, have been indulging in
forging and fabricating documents such as medical reports and signatures of
officials as per their convenience. It has been alleged that certain medical reports
dated 29.09.2022, 18.01.2023, 20.01.2023, 19.08.2023 and 18.11.2023 along with
prescription of Dr. M.K. Gupta were forged and fabricated and were filed before
the Court in the above-mentioned NI Act case. It has been further alleged that
some of these documents were filed during a period when proposed accused no. 2
was allegedly not present in India and had remained in the United States of
America from 11.08.2023 to 31.08.2023.
It has been further submitted that on 02.09.2024, the complainant
engaged a new counsel to appear in the aforesaid case and other connected matters
and upon inspection of the judicial file, he discovered that an application dated
19.05.2023 along with a supporting affidavit had been filed purportedly on his
behalf and upon examining the said documents, the complainant was shocked to
find that the signatures appearing on the said application and affidavit were forged
and fabricated. It has been further alleged that the complainant had neither
authorized anyone to sign the said application and affidavit nor had he himself
signed those documents and the signatures appearing on the said documents were
forged without his consent or knowledge. It has been further submitted that the
complainant had thereafter applied for certified copies of the relevant documents
-- 2 of 6 --
and also filed an application under Section 340 CrPC before the concerned NI Act
Court regarding the alleged forgery.
It is lastly submitted that the complainant had also lodged a police
complaint dated 04.11.2024 vide DD No. 8 PP with the Chowki Incharge, Tis
Hazari Courts regarding the alleged forgery, which was marked to SI K.P. Shaurya
for enquiry. It is further alleged that the accused persons have indulged in habitual
forgery and fabrication of documents with the intention of manipulating judicial
proceedings. It is further submitted that the complainant also filed another
complaint dated 21.04.2025 before the DCP (North), P.S. Sabzi Mandi regarding
the alleged forgery committed in the above-mentioned NI Act case, however,
despite repeated requests no action has been taken by the police authorities.
Action taken report was filed by SI Kiranpal Singh, as per which, it
was revealed that the case under Sections 138/141/142 NI Act was filed by Embee
Diagnostic Pvt. Ltd. against Focus Imaging & Research Centre Pvt. Ltd. and its
directors including Dr. Prashant Sarin and Vinod Kumar Sharma and during the
proceedings of the said case, an application dated 20.05.2023 for removal of the
name of accused no. 3, namely Vinod Kumar Sharma, from the array of parties
was filed before the Court of Ld. MM (NI Act-06), Central District, Tis Hazari
Courts through counsel and an affidavit allegedly bearing the signature of the
complainant was also filed along with the said application. As per the enquiry
report, the persons against whom allegations have been made have denied the
allegations. It is further stated in the report that the alleged forged affidavit was
filed before the concerned Court and that no complaint regarding forgery had been
received from the said Court. On the basis of the enquiry conducted, the Enquiry
Officer has concluded that prima facie no cognizable offence is made out.
During the course of arguments, Ld. Counsel for the complainant has
reiterated the facts as narrated in the complaint which are not repeated herein.
I have carefully considered the application, the complaint, the
material placed on record, and the Action Taken Report.
-- 3 of 6 --
It is pertinent to note that the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case
titled
M/S. Skipper Beverages Pvt Ltd. vs State, 92 (2001) DLT 217 has held that:
“10. Section 156(3) of the Code aims at curtailing and
controlling the arbitrariness on the part of the police authorities
in the matter of registration of FIRs and taking up
investigations, even in those cases where the same are
warranted. The Section empower the Magistrate to issue
directions in this regard but this provision should not be
permitted to be misused by the complainants to get police cases
registered even in those cases which are not very serious in
nature and the Magistrate himself can hold enquiry under
Chapter XV and proceed against the accused if required.
Therefore, a Magistrate, must apply his mind before passing an
order under Section 156(3) of the Code and must not pass these
orders mechanically on the mere asking by the complainant.
These powers ought to be exercised primarily in those cases
where the allegations are quite serious or evidence is beyond the
reach of complainant or custodial interrogation appears to be
necessary for some recovery of article or discovery of fact.”
The scope of Section 156(3) CrPC is well settled and the power to
direct registration of FIR is discretionary and is to be exercised judiciously, only
where the allegations prima facie disclose commission of a cognizable offence and
police investigation is necessary. In the present case, the allegations of the
complainant relate to the alleged filing of forged documents (mostly medical
documents, prescription and reports) and affidavit before a judicial court in
connection with the proceedings of the NI Act case pending before the concerned
court. It is also an admitted position that the complainant has already moved an
application under Section 340 CrPC before the concerned court regarding the
alleged forgery and fabrication of documents. The alleged forged documents form
part of the judicial record of the said NI Act case and the question regarding the
genuineness or otherwise of those documents falls within the domain of the court
where those proceedings are pending. Here, it is imperative to note that it has been
-- 4 of 6 --
held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case titled
M/s Bandekar Brothers Pvt. Ltd.
vs
. Prasad Vassudev Keni, AIR (2020) SC 4247, that in a case where the primary
offence is perjury and not just forgery, the bar of section 195 CrPC will still apply
and a private complaint in this regard is barred. In the present case, it is evident
that the allegations are that of making false documents and affidavits, which
would would attract the provisions of section 228/229 BNS and Section 338/340
BNS. It is pertinent to note that a private complaint under these Section is barred
under Section 215(1)(b)(i) BNSS. No arguments in this regard have been
addressed by the complainant.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court in
M/s Bandekar Brothers (Supra) has
further discussed its judgment in
Iqbal Singh Marwah & Anr. vs
. Meenakshi
Marwah & Anr., (2005) 4 SCC 370 at great length with the other judgments qua
application of the bar under Section 195(1)(b)(i) CrPC and bar under Section
195(1)(b)(ii) CrPC and the scenario when in the same transaction, two separate
sets of offence are made out, one out of which is not hit by the bar u/S 195 CrPC,
and it has been held that:
“33. The aforesaid judgments clearly lay down that when Section
195(1)(b)(i) of the CrPC is attracted, the ratio of Iqbal Singh Marwah
(supra), which approved Sachida Nand Singh and Anr. v. State of
Bihar and Anr. (1998) 2 SCC 493, is not attracted, and that therefore,
if false evidence is created outside the Court premises attracting
Sections 191/192 of the IPC, the aforesaid ratio would not apply so as
to validate a private complaint filed for offences made out under these
sections.”
xxx xxx
“44. Equally important to remember is that if in the course of the
same transaction two separate offences are made out, for one of
which Section 195 of the CrPC is not attracted, and it is not possible
to split them up, the drill of Section 195(1)(b) of the CrPC must be
followed.”
In view of the above discussion, since the alleged false and forged
documents, i.e., medical reports and prescription and the affidavit along with
-- 5 of 6 --
application for discharge of behalf of complainant herein, were filed and relied
upon before the Court of Ld. MM (NI Act) at Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi as
evidence, the present case is hit by the bar under Section 215(1)(b)(i) BNSS
(Section 195(1)(b)(i) CrPC). Further, since the allegations of forgery and perjury
are inter-connected and cannot be separated, thus, even making a private
complaint u/S 223 BNSS for forgery alone before this Court would be non-
permissible in law.
Accordingly, since cognizance is barred, present complaint u/S 175(3)
BNSS/223 BNSS is disposed of as dismissed.
File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
(Preeti Rajoria)
JMFC-07/Central District
Delhi/22.04.2026
-- 6 of 6 --