Mr. Tanveer Ahmed Mir, Senior Advocate with Mr. Gurpreet Singh, Mr. Jatin Sethi, Mr v. STATE & ANR

Judgment

1. The present petitions under Section 482 read with Section 483 of the Code of Criminal procedure, 19731 seek quashing of Complaint Case No. 2513/01, titled “Harsh Allagh v. Sunair Hotels Ltd. & Others” filed by Respondent No. 2 against the Petitioners, as well as the summoning order dated 16th December, 2009 passed by the M.M., Patiala House Courts, New Delhi pursuant to the said complaint. By the impugned order, the Petitioners have been summoned for the offences under Sections 211/34/120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.2

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

2. Brief facts leading to the filing of the present petitions are as follows: History of litigation

2.1. VLS Finance Limited3 entered into a Memorandum of Understanding dated 11th March, 1995 with Sunair Hotels Limited4 (Petitioner in CRL.M.C. 1458/2011) for extending financial assistance to a five-star deluxe hotel project undertaken by Sunair. The Petitioners in CRL.M.C. 1460/2011 are the directors of Sunair. 1 “Cr.P.C.” 2 “IPC” 3 “VLS” Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:AKANSHA SINGH Signing Date:14.10.2025 19:43:20 CRL.M.C. 1458/2011 & CRL.M.C. 1460/2011 Page 2 of 12

2.2. Subsequent disputes between the parties gave rise to extensive litigation before multiple fora. Alleging fraud and misappropriation by Sunair and its officials, VLS lodged several complaints, including FIR No. 99/2002 and FIR No. 90/2000 at P.S. Connaught Place, and FIR No. 148/2002 at P.S. Defence Colony. Cognizance was taken, and summons were issued to the accused.

2.3. Sunair, in turn, filed complaints, including FIR No. 326/2004 and FIR No. 380/2005. In FIR No. 326/2004, allegations of cheating, fraud, and criminal breach of trust were levelled against the directors of VLS. Investigation in this FIR was stayed by this Court vide order dated 28th July,

2.4. Thereafter, Sunair lodged a complaint dated 21st March, 2005, followed by reminder dated 14th April, 2006 with the SHO, P.S. Malviya Nagar against the directors of VLS, alleging unlawful procurement of documents from the Income Tax Department and possession of stolen property. It was specifically alleged that the accused had committed the offence of theft under Section 378 IPC, thereby attracting offences under Sections 379, 380, 403, 408, 411, 414, 427, 447, and 120-B of the IPC. These complaints were subsequently closed after the Income Tax Department clarified that the documents in question had not been stolen and remained in official custody.

2.5. Further, Sunair filed W.P. (Crl.) 983/2006 before this Court seeking registration of an FIR under Sections 379, 411, and 120-B IPC. The writ petition was dismissed on 7th August, 2007 on the ground of maintainability, without adjudicating the merits of the allegations. 4 “Sunair” Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:AKANSHA SINGH Signing Date:14.10.2025 19:43:20 CRL.M.C. 1458/2011 & CRL.M.C. 1460/2011 Page 3 of 12 Impugned Complaint Case and Summoning Order

2.6. Aggrieved by the filing of the aforesaid complaints, Respondent No. 2 (VLS) instituted Complaint Case No. 2513/01, alleging that the Petitioners had conspired to file frivolous and malicious complaints to pressurise VLS into withdrawing or compromising its claims. It was alleged that the Petitioners were aware, at the time of lodging the complaints, that no theft of departmental records had occurred, and that the complaints were filed with the intent to cause wrongful injury to VLS, thereby constituting offences punishable under Sections 211, 34, and 120-B IPC.

2.7. Sunair thereafter moved an application under Section 340 read with Section 195(1)(b) Cr.P.C. before the Magistrate, seeking initiation of an inquiry and filing of a complaint against Respondent No. 2 for suppressing material facts and filing a false complaint with intent to cause injury to the Petitioners.

2.8. After considering the evidence and examining witnesses, Magistrate, by order dated 16th December, 2009, summoned the accused, including the Petitioners, for offences under Sections 211, 34, and 120-B IPC. By a separate order of the same date, the Magistrate dismissed Sunair’s application under Section 340 Cr.P.C. PETITIONER’S CASE

3. Aggrieved, the Petitioners have filed the present petitions assailing the impugned complaint and summoning order on the following grounds:

3.1. The impugned complaint is primarily based on the allegation that the complaints filed by the Petitioners against VLS were false. Even assuming, for the sake of argument, that the allegations are correct, the acts complained of would, at their highest, attract Section 182 IPC. In such circumstances, Section 195(1)(a)(i) Cr.P.C. operates as a clear bar to cognizance on the CRL.M.C. 1458/2011 & CRL.M.C. 1460/2011 Page 4 of 12 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:AKANSHA SINGH Signing Date:14.10.2025 19:43:20 basis of a private complaint. The law mandates that offences under Section 182 IPC can be taken cognizance of, only upon a written complaint by the concerned public servant, in this case, the police officer, and not at the instance of a private individual.

3.2. The allegations in the impugned complaint, even if accepted at their face value, do not prima facie constitute an offence under Section 211 IPC. In any case, cognizance of such an offence could not have been taken by the Magistrate in view of the express prohibition contained in Section 195(1)(b)(i) Cr.P.C., which restricts prosecution for offences under Sections 193 to 196, 199 to 211 and 228 IPC, except upon a complaint in writing by the concerned Court or by such officer of the Court as that Court may authorise in writing in this behalf, or of some other Court to which that Court is subordinate.

3.3. The Complainant examined ASI Shabuddin (CW-1), to whom Sunair’s complaint dated 14th April, 2006 had been entrusted for inquiry. CW-1 deposed that the complaint could not be investigated due to lack of territorial jurisdiction; he did not, however, state that the allegations were false or fabricated. In fact, the status report filed before this Court in W.P. (Crl.) 983/2006 did not refer to any jurisdictional impediment. It merely recorded that the report of the Income Tax Department had not been stolen and continued to remain in official custody. The Petitioners’ grievance, however, was not limited to the physical theft of documents, but rather to the alleged unauthorised access and use of confidential departmental reports by Respondent No. 2, an allegation of a distinct and serious nature.

3.4. Respondent No. 2 deliberately suppressed material facts: While asserting that the complaints dated 21st March, 2005 and 14th April, 2006 filed by the Petitioners had been closed, Respondent No. 2 omitted to CRL.M.C. 1458/2011 & CRL.M.C. 1460/2011 Page 5 of 12 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:AKANSHA SINGH Signing Date:14.10.2025 19:43:20 disclose that, pursuant to a separate complaint lodged by Sunair, FIR No. 326/2004 was registered at P.S. Connaught Place under Sections 406, 409, 420, 424, and 120-B IPC. In addition, FIR No. 380/2005 was also registered against the Respondents. Further, W.P. (Crl.) 983/2006, instituted by the Petitioners before this Court, was dismissed solely on the ground of maintainability and not on merits. The dismissal, therefore, cannot be construed as a judicial determination that the allegations made therein were false or unfounded. ANALYSIS

4. The challenge to the summoning order is primarily premised on two grounds: First, it is urged that the allegations made by Respondent No. 2, even if accepted in entirety, disclose at best an offence under Section 182 IPC and not under Section 211 IPC. Consequently, in view of the express bar contained in Section 195(1)(a)(i) Cr.P.C., cognizance could not have been taken on a private complaint. Second, it is contended that even assuming, arguendo, that the ingredients of Section 211 IPC are attracted, the Magistrate would nonetheless be precluded from taking cognizance in the absence of a complaint by the concerned Court, as mandated under Section 195(1)(b)(i) Cr.P.C.

5. It is well-settled that at the stage of summoning, the Magistrate’s inquiry is confined to determining whether a prima facie case exists to proceed against the accused. The Magistrate is not expected to meticulously weigh the evidence or assess its sufficiency for conviction.5 The test is whether the allegations, if taken at face value, constitute an offence known to law and disclose sufficient ground for proceeding further.6 The inquiry at