Delhi High Court dismissed a writ petition seeking quashing of an FIR alleging personation and cheating. The bench held the FIR disclosed cognizable offences and investigation could not be thwarted at a nascent stage.
Petition for quashing of FIR dismissed; petitioner permitted to raise contentions before Trial Court.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
$~81
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
PAWAN PANDEY ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Shivam Sharma & Mr. Ranjeet Kumar, Advs.
Versus
STATE OF NCT OF DELHI ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Amol Sinha, ASC for the State (Crl.) for the State with Mr. Kshitiz Garg, Mr. Ashvini Kumar & Ms. Chavi Lazarus, Advs. SI Naveen Dahiya, PSCI/Special Cell SI Mahesh Kumar, PSIFSO/ Special Cell
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN
O R D E R % 13.03.2024
2.1 The FIR was registered on a complaint made by
This is a digitally signed order. W.P.(CRL) 842/2024 The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 04/04/2024 at 12:12:50
Page 1 of 8
Deputy Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs alleging that the petitioner is running an NGO in the name of Modi Charitable Trust (hereafter “ the Trust ”) and misrepresenting in the name of the Hon’ble Prime Minister of India, Shri Narendra Modi. It is also alleged that the petitioner is using the picture of the Hon’ble Prime Minister of India along with his own picture on National News Channel for deceiving the public at large which was evidenced by an advertisement broadcasting the picture of the petitioner along with Hon’ble Prime Minister of India, Shri Narendra Modi, with the name of the Trust runby the petitioner.
2.2 It is alleged that, since the Trust is an NGO which receives donations/ funds from general public, the applicant is gaining donations/ funds by using the surname and picture of the Hon’ble Prime Minister of India.
“7. To take grant from Central Government and State Government, concerned department, receive donations, contribution, and subscription, assistant in cash or in kind
This is a digitally signed order. W.P.(CRL) 842/2024 The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 04/04/2024 at 12:12:50
Page 2 of 8
from semi Govt. Authorities, public undertaking, banks, Financial Institution, Board, Public and private institution, enterprise, Individuals, trust, Firms, companies, Corporation, Cooperative Societies, National or International Agencies, foreign Government, Foreign trust in India, or abroad, for the welfare of citizen and to make self oriented and give easy training i.e. Sewing, knitting. Sculpture and wooden art, Dari, Kalin and drawing, painting, ART training and Typing Centre, steno learning centre and computer training so they should prepare theirs eves and yield the selfness less for the fulfillment of the said work, the trust.”
This is a digitally signed order. W.P.(CRL) 842/2024 The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 04/04/2024 at 12:12:50
Page 3 of 8
“13. From the aforesaid decisions of this Court, right from the decision of the Privy Council in Khwaja Nazir Ahmad [King Emperor v. Khwaja Nazir Ahmad, 1944 SCC OnLine PC 29 : (1943-44) 71 IA 203 : AIR 1945 PC 18] , the following principles of law emerge:
13.1. Police has the statutory right and duty under the relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure contained in Chapter XIV of the Code to investigate into cognizable offences.
13.2. Courts would not thwart any investigation into the cognizable offences. 13.3. However, in cases where no cognizable offence or offence of any kind is disclosed in the first information report the Court will not permit an investigation to go on.
13.4. The power of quashing should be exercised sparingly with circumspection, in the “rarest of rare cases”. (The rarest of rare cases standard in its application for quashing under Section 482CrPC is not to be confused with the norm which has been formulated in the context of the death penalty, as explained previously by this Court.)
13.5. While examining an FIR/complaint, quashing of which is sought, the Court cannot embark upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR/complaint.
13.6. Criminal proceedings ought not to be scuttled at the initial stage.
13.7. Quashing of a complaint/FIR should be an exception and a rarity than an ordinary rule.
13.8. Ordinarily, the courts are barred from usurping the jurisdiction of the police, since the two organs of the State operate in two specific spheres of activities. The inherent power of the court is, however, recognised to secure the ends of justice or prevent the above of the process by Section 482CrPC.
13.9. The functions of the judiciary and the police are complementary, not overlapping. 13.10. Save in exceptional cases where non-
interference would result in miscarriage of justice, the Court and the judicial process should not interfere at the stage of investigation of offences.
13.11. Extraordinary and inherent powers of the Court do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the Court to act according to its whims or caprice.
This is a digitally signed order. W.P.(CRL) 842/2024 The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 04/04/2024 at 12:12:50
Page 4 of 8
13.12. The first information report is not an encyclopaedia which must disclose all facts and details relating to the offence reported. Therefore, when the investigation by the police is in progress, the court should not go into the merits of the allegations in the FIR. Police must be permitted to complete the investigation. It would be premature to pronounce the conclusion based on hazy facts that the complaint/FIR does not deserve to be investigated or that it amounts to abuse of process of law. During or after investigation, if the investigating officer finds that there is no substance in the application made by the complainant, the investigating officer may file an appropriate report/summary before the learned Magistrate which may be considered by the learned Magistrate in accordance with the known procedure.
13.13. The power under Section 482CrPC is very wide, but conferment of wide power requires the Court to be cautious. It casts an onerous and more diligent duty on the Court. 13.14. However, at the same time, the Court, if it thinks fit, regard being had to the parameters of quashing and the self-restraint imposed by law, more particularly the parameters laid down by this Court in R.P. Kapur [R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab, 1960 SCC OnLine SC 21 : AIR 1960 SC 866] and Bhajan Lal [State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 : 1992 SCC (Cri) 426] , has the jurisdiction to quash the FIR/complaint.
13.15. When a prayer for quashing the FIR is made by the alleged accused, the Court when it exercises the power under Section 482CrPC, only has to consider whether or not the allegations in the FIR disclose the commission of a cognizable offence and is not required to consider on merits whether the allegations make out a cognizable offence or not and the court has to permit the investigating agency/police to investigate the allegations in the FIR.”
8. Recently, the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Enforcement Directorate v. Niraj Tyagi : 2024 SCC OnLine
This is a digitally signed order. W.P.(CRL) 842/2024 The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 04/04/2024 at 12:12:50
Page 5 of 8
SC 134 , has emphasized that the quashing of an FIR should be an exception rather than an ordinary rule and held as under :
“20. In our opinion, it's a matter of serious concern that despite the legal position settled by this Court in catena of decisions, the High Court has passed the impugned orders staying the investigations of the FIRs and ECIR in question in utter disregard of the said settled legal position. Without undermining the powers of the High Court under Section 482 of Cr. P.C. to quash the proceedings if the allegations made in the FIR or complaint prima facie do not constitute any offence against the accused, or if the criminal proceedings are found to be manifestly malafide or malicious, instituted with ulterior motive etc., we are of the opinion that the High Court could not have stayed the investigations and restrained the investigating agencies from investigating into the cognizable offences as alleged in the FIRs and the ECIR, particularly when the investigations were at a very nascent stage. It hardly needs to be reiterated that the inherent powers under Section 482 of Cr. P.C. do not confer any arbitrary jurisdiction on the High Court to act according to whims or caprice. The statutory power has to be exercised sparingly with circumspection and in the rarest of rare cases. In a way, by passing such orders of staying the investigations and restraining the investigating agencies from taking any coercive measure against the accused pending the petitions under Section 482Cr. P.C., the High Court has granted blanket orders restraining the arrest without the accused applying for the anticipatory bail under Section 438 of Cr. P.C.”
(Emphasis Supplied)
the learned counsel for the petitioner, it is imperative to firstly examine whether the relevant ingredients of the alleged offences, are prima facie made out. The relevant sections read as follows :
“419. Punishment for cheating by personation.
Whoever cheats by personation shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.
420. Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property.
Whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly induces the person deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to make, alter or destroy the whole or any part of a valuable security, or anything which is signed or sealed, and which is capable of being converted into a valuable security, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may
This is a digitally signed order. W.P.(CRL) 842/2024 The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 04/04/2024 at 12:12:50
Page 6 of 8
extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.”
This is a digitally signed order. W.P.(CRL) 842/2024 The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 04/04/2024 at 12:12:50
Page 7 of 8
AMIT MAHAJAN, J
MARCH 13, 2024 “SS” /UG
This is a digitally signed order. W.P.(CRL) 842/2024 The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 04/04/2024 at 12:12:50
Page 8 of 8
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the allegations in the FIR discloses the commission of cognizable offences under Sections 419 and 420 of the IPC.
Whether the court has jurisdiction to quash the FIR at the nascent stage of investigation under Section 482 CrPC.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Khwaja Nazir AhmadExplained¶30
Khwaja Nazir Ahmad [King Emperor v. Khwaja Nazir Ahmad, 1944 SCC OnLine PC 29 : (1943-44) 71 IA 203 : AIR 1945 PC 18] · Who else cites this
Neeharika Infrastructure v. State of MaharashtraRelied on¶27
Neeharika Infrastructure v. state of Maharashtra : 2021 SCC OnLine 315 · Who else cites this
R.P. Kapur v. State of PunjabReferred¶44
R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab, 1960 SCC OnLine SC 21 : AIR 1960 SC 866 · Who else cites this
State of Haryana v. Bhajan LalReferred¶44
State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 : 1992 SCC (Cri) 426 · Who else cites this
Enforcement Directorate v. Niraj TyagiRelied on¶46
Enforcement Directorate v. Niraj Tyagi : 2024 SCC OnLine 134 · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 2 enactments
PAWAN PANDEY
STATE OF NCT OF DELHI
AMIT MAHAJAN
As recorded by the court registry
A constitutional writ petition in a criminal context, most commonly habeas corpus or a challenge to an FIR or detention order.
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
