Order 5

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: :: 1 ::
Ct Cases 417/2021
SUNWAY INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES LTD Vs. BANK OF
BARODA AND ORS.
03.03.2022
Present : Sh. Deepak Khosla, ld. counsel for the complainant
by way of VC.
1. Matter was fixed for furnishing documents in support of
compliance of section 154(1) and 154(3) Cr PC. However, ld.
counsel for complainant has moved an application submitting that
a representative of the applicant had visited PS Parliament Street
on or about 12.06.2020 to hand over a written complaint. However,
the police officials refused to give any written acknowledgment or
receipt of such complaint and therefore, the complainant company
has no proof for compliance of section 154(1) Cr PC.
2. Further, it is submitted that when the representative of the
applicant/complainant went to the post office PS Parliament Street
to post a copy of complaint by way of speed post due to extreme
nervousness on part of post office staff pertaining to Covid 19 they
also refused to accept physical paper for posting by speed post.
3. It is further submitted that on 24.06.2020, copy of the said
complaint was filed with the office of the DCP (Central District at
Darya Ganj) wherein again proper stamp acknowledgement
/receipt was refused to be given, and the clerk therein merely
appended his initial on the lower right of the said letter.
4. It is further submitted that as a matter of abundant precaution
-- 1 of 7 --
:: 2 ::
the complainant forwarded his complaint to the then CP and Joint
CP and also DCP Vigilance by way of email.
5. Heard. Considered. File perused.
6. Perusal of record shows that the complainant company in its
complaint filed before this court on 20.06.2021 duly supported by
an affidavit has mentioned on page no. 30 as follows:
“li) On 12-06-2020, the Complainant Company lodged a
complaint, under section 154(1) of the CrPC for registration of
an F.I.R. against the accused bank and its officers before the
Station House Officer, PS Parliament Street, New Delhi
wherein the act of criminal breach of trust of rupees 2.80
crores committed by the accused bank was informed. A copy of
the letter dated 12-06-2020 is appended hereto and marked as
Annexure 44.”
7. Therefore, it is apparent from the record that complainant
has intentionally made wrong submissions before this court to
initiate proceedings under section 156(3) Cr PC. No submission
regarding refusal on part of the police officials at PS Parliament
Street was made in the application under section 156(3) Cr PC
which runs in over 500 pages and it is only when the court
specifically directed the complainant to place on record proofs
supporting compliance of section 154(1) and 154(3) Cr PC that the
complainant has now brought forth his tale of misery.
8. Even then the complainant has failed to mention the name
and details of the ‘representative of the complainant’ who visited
-- 2 of 7 --
:: 3 ::
the PS Parliament Street and the name of the police official(s) he
interacted with therein who allegedly refused to register his
complaint /give due acknowledgement.
9. Again no date has been mentioned as to when did the
‘representative of the applicant’ visited the Post Office Parliament
Street to post the complaint and who were the officials and their
designations who refused to accept the physical papers for posting
by speed post.
10. Similar vague submissions have been made qua the visit of
the ‘representative of the complainant’ at the office of DCP
(Central District at Darya Ganj). This court has also failed to
understand as to why the complainant sent his representative to the
office of DCP Central District whereas the jurisdiction of PS
Parliament Street lies with the office of DCP, New Delhi District
whose office is situated within the same premises as that of the
police station Parliament Street.
11. It is also strange that the alleged refusal by the police official
at PS Parliament Street to accept the complaint dated 12.06.2020
was not reported by the alleged “representative of the applicant’ to
the DCP concerned on the same date itself while his office is
located in the same building.
12. It is also interesting to note here that while the complainant
took the effort to locate the email IDs of the then CP, Joint CP and
also DCP Vigilance to file his complaint he did not bother to
-- 3 of 7 --
:: 4 ::
directly or additionally email his complaint to the concerned DCP
and SHO whose official email ids are also available in public
domain.
13. It is also worthy to mention here that on LDOH, ld. counsel
for complainant had submitted before this court that the complaint
dated 12.06.2020 was sent by way of speed post to PS Parliament
Street and that he shall produce the original postal receipts and
tracking report on NDOH after obtaining it from his client.
However, today the complainant has taken a complete turn to
submit that no such letter was ever sent through post since the
officials refused to accept physical papers owing to Covid 19.
14. It is also pertinent to note that ld. counsel for complainant
while pressing for urgency had strongly objected to directions of
this court to call for an ATR from the concerned PS and had rather
forcefully insisted upon immediate issuance of directions for
registration of FIR. However, this court in all its wiseness sought a
report on the limited point that if any FIR has already been
registered upon the complaint allegedly filed by the complainant
company on 12.06.2020 so as to avoid initiation of multiple
proceedings on the same facts. It is only upon the receipt of report
from the concerned PS dated 05.02.2022 that this court was
apprised that no complaint as alleged by the complainant was ever
received in the concerned PS.
15. At this stage, therefore, considering the contradictory
submissions made by the complainant, I am of the view that ld.
-- 4 of 7 --
:: 5 ::
counsel for complainant was intentionally and deliberately
impressing upon this court to issue immediate order for
registration of FIR without calling for an ATR being well aware
that the complainant has not complied with section 154(1) and
154(3) Cr PC.
16. Ld. Apex Court in judgment titled as Priyanka Srivastava
& Anr vs State Of U.P.& Ors Crl. Appeal no.781 of 2012,
decided on 19 March, 2015; upon similar facts, wherein a debtor
company that was declared a NPA due to bad loan, abused the
process of law to bring on knees the creditor bank and its
employees, while observing how some unscrupulous, unprincipled
and deviant litigants abuse the power of court to harass individuals
and statutory authorities for their personal motives laid as follows:-
“27. In our considered opinion, a stage has come in this
country where Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. applications are to be
supported by an affidavit duly sworn by the applicant who
seeks the invocation of the jurisdiction of the Magistrate. That
apart, in an appropriate case, the learned Magistrate would be
well advised to verify the truth and also can verify the veracity
of the allegations. This affidavit can make the applicant more
responsible. We are compelled to say so as such kind of
applications are being filed in a routine manner without taking
any responsibility whatsoever only to harass certain persons.
That apart, it becomes more disturbing and alarming when one
tries to pick up people who are passing orders under a
statutory provision which can be challenged under the
framework of said Act or under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India. But it cannot be done to take undue advantage in a
criminal court as if somebody is determined to settle the
-- 5 of 7 --
:: 6 ::
scores. We have already indicated that there has to be prior
applications under Section 154(1) and 154(3) while filing a
petition under Section 156(3). Both the aspects should be
clearly spelt out in the application and necessary documents to
that effect shall be filed. The warrant for giving a direction that
an the application under Section 156(3) be supported by an
affidavit so that the person making the application should be
conscious and also endeavour to see that no false affidavit is
made. It is because once an affidavit is found to be false, he
will be liable for prosecution in accordance with law. This will
deter him to casually invoke the authority of the Magistrate
under Section 156(3)”
17. The instant case as well, seems like a deliberate attempt by
the complainant company to abuse the process of law by painting a
canvas of agony through assiduous assertions, while the real
intention is to mislead this court into initiating a false prosecution
against Bank of Baroda, which is a financial institution wherein
the complainant company’s loan account has been declared ‘NPA’
(Non Performing Asset) and 42 of its employees (from senior most
to the operational level) who all are public servants, to force them
into some sort of settlement.
18. In such circumstances, false declaration upon affidavit to
initiate a frivolous proceedings cannot be taken leniently.
Accordingly, let a show cause notice be issued to the AR of the
complainant to submit as to why proceedings under section 199
IPC may not be initiated against him for filing an affidavit in this
court being well aware that the submissions made therein are false
-- 6 of 7 --
:: 7 ::
in nature for 22.03.2022.
19. Further, AR of the complainant company is directed to
appear in person physically before this court on NDOH.
(AMARDEEP KAUR)
M.M.-06/PHC/ND/03.03.2022
-- 7 of 7 --