IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Criminal Miscellaneous No. M-23889 of 2011 (O & M) Date of Decision: September 13, 2011 Dinesh Dureja & another .....PETITIONER(S) VERSUS State of Punjab & others .....RESPONDENT(S) . . . CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: - Mr. R. Kartikeya, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. Manoj Bajaj, Additional Advocate General, Punjab. Mr. Vishal Garg, Advocate, for respondent No.2. Mr. Navjot Sidhu, Advocate, for Mr. Hemant Bassi, Advocate, for respondent No.3. . . . AJAI LAMBA, J (Oral) 1. This petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. prays for quashing FIR No.5 dated 8.7.2011 (Annexure P-1) under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC registered with Police Station, Punjab State Crime, SAS Nagar (Mohali) or in the Crl. Misc. No. M-23889 of 2011 [2] alternative the investigation of the FIR case be transferred to some independent agency outside the State of Punjab. 2. Gist of the issue is reflected from order dated 24.8.2011 which is reproduced hereunder:- “Petitioners – Dinesh Dureja and Rahul Mehra, have filed this petition under Section 482, Code of Crimi- nal Procedure, for quashing of FIR No.5 dated 8.7.2011 under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 120-B, Indian Pe- nal Code, Police Station, Punjab State Crime, SAS Nagar (Mohali) (Annexure P-1), qua the petitioners. The petition, in the alternative, prays for transfer of investigation to some Investigating Agency outside the State of Punjab/Central Bureau of Investigation. It transpires that on 17.1.2011, a complaint (An- nexure P-5) at the instance of petitioner No.1 was received in Public Window, Police Head Quarter, Sector 9, Chandi- garh. An inquiry was conducted, which culminated in re- port dated 23.5.2011. As per the short reply by way of affidavit of Shri Baljit Singh Chadha, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Economic Offences Wing, U.T., Chandigarh, filed in Court today and taken on record, because the transaction involved economic offences falling within the jurisdiction of Economic Offences Wing, Chandigarh, therefore, the complaint was forwarded to the office of Deputy Inspector General of Police, Chandigarh. Subsequently, it came to be marked to Inspector Kuldeep Singh for inquiry, who in turn, marked it to Sub Inspector Naveen Sharma. The mat- ter was inquired in detail and inquiry report dated 23.5.2011 was submitted recommending that opinion of Deputy District Attorney (Legal) be taken, as to whether commission of any cognizable offence has been made out or not. The report with the recommendation was for- warded to Deputy Inspector General of Police, Chandi- garh. On 26.5.2011, Deputy Inspector General of Police, Chandigarh, called for opinion of Deputy District Attorney (Legal). The Deputy District Attorney (Legal) gave his opinion dated 7.7.2011, stating that cognizable offences have been committed by Vikram Verma and Pardeep Sharma. Thereafter, Deputy Inspector General of Police, Chandigarh, forwarded the file to Inspector General of Po- lice, Chandigarh, for approval, on 14.7.2011. Crl. Misc. No. M-23889 of 2011 [3] In the meantime, a news item appeared from which it became apparent that the FIR on the subject matter un- der inquiry had been registered in Mohali viz. FIR No.5 dated 8.7.2011 under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 120-B, Indian Penal Code, Police Station, Punjab State Crime, SAS Nagar (Mohali). The file was again marked to Deputy District Attorney (Legal). Be that as it may, FIR No.274 dated 23.8.2011 under Sections 419, 420, 120-B, Indian Penal Code, has been lodged at Police Station, Sec- tor 17, Chandigarh. The stand of the respondent-Punjab State is to the effect that because transaction of money had been done at Zirakpur, District Mohali, therefore, cause of action arose at Zirakpur and Police Station, Punjab State Crime, SAS Nagar (Mohali) has the jurisdiction to register the FIR. It has further been said that no role of Shri Sanjiv Gupta, Additional Director General of Police, or his son Saurav Gupta has been found in registration of the case. The alle- gations levelled against them in para-8 of the petition are false. The relevant provisions of Code of Criminal Proce- dure, viz. Sections 177, 178 and 179, read as under:- “177. Ordinary place of inquiry and trial.- Every of- fence shall ordinarily be inquired into and tried by a Court within whose local jurisdiction it was committed. 178. Place of inquiry or trial.- (a) When it is uncertain in which of several local areas an offence was commit- ted, or (b) where an offence is committed partly in one local area and partly in another, or (c) where an offence is a continuing one, and continues to be committed in more local areas than one, or (d) where it consists of several acts done in different lo- cal areas, it may be inquired into or tried by a Court hav- ing jurisdiction over any of such local areas. 179. Offence triable where act is done or conse- quence ensues.- When an act is an offence by reason of anything which has been done and of a consequence which has ensued, the offence may be inquired into or tried by a Court within whose local jurisdiction such thing has been done or such consequence has ensued.” Crl. Misc. No. M-23889 of 2011 [4] When the facts and circumstances of the present case are considered, it becomes evident that, at the first in- stance, in point of time, agreement dated 18.11.2009 was executed between petitioner No.1 and Pramod Gupta on the one hand and Karanveer Singh Mann on the other hand. When it came to light that offences of cheating and fraud had been committed, a complaint was made in Pub- lic Window, Police Head Quarters, Sector 9, Chandigarh, on 17.1.2011, which culminated in lodging of the FIR, af- ter inquiry and report given by Deputy District Attorney attached with the Police Department viz. FIR No.274 dated 23.8.2011 under Sections 419, 420, 120-B, Indian Penal Code, Police Station, Sector 17, Chandigarh. To the contrary, in Mohali, a complaint was made in regard to the second agreement dated 9.7.2010, where- for complaint was made on 7.7.2011 to Additional Direc- tor General of Police, Crime, Punjab. FIR No.5 was lodged on 8.7.2011 at the instance of respondent No.2. No inquiry was conducted by the Punjab police so as to, prima facie, ascertain the facts, as is the admitted practice in Pun- jab, in regard to economic offences. So far as the place of incident/transaction is con- cerned, for the purposes of jurisdiction, in the scheme of events under consideration, either the location of property is required to be seen, which is in Sector 19, Chandigarh, or the place where the agreement has been executed be- tween the parties. Neither is located in Mohali in the State of Punjab. The agreement to sell has not been executed in Mo- hali. The property is located in Chandigarh. Certain inter- polations appear to have been made in the Estate Office department, Chandigarh for which investigation is re- quired to be conducted even in context of the documents available in Estate Office, Chandigarh. In such circum- stances, clearly, the police in Mohali cannot be an effec- tive Investigating Agency, for investigation of the offences allegedly committed in context of the provisions of Sec- tions 177 to 179, Code of Criminal Procedure, as extracted above. Petitioner No.1 and Pramod Gupta appear to have purchased the property under an agreement to sell from Karanveer Singh Mann who, subsequently, has been found to be Vikram Verma. They appear to have sold the said property to Vineet Goyal (respondent No.2) vide second agreement. The investigation, therefore, is first required to be made as regards the original owners; whether all the owners are alive; whether the said owners have/had given Crl. Misc. No. M-23889 of 2011 [5] any Power of Attorney, etc. from whom petitioner No.1 and Pramod Goyal purchased the property. Thus, major part of effective investigation is required to be conducted within the jurisdiction of Chandigarh Police. In case, Chandigarh Police was vigilant and rea- sonably efficient, the inquiry in the complaint made on 17.1.2011 would have been completed within a reasonable period, which ideally should not have travelled beyond 30 days of receipt of the complaint. If the needful had been done by the Chandigarh Police, surely, the FIR would have been lodged sometime in February/March, 2011. I find that only the offence of cheating has been in- corporated and the offences of impersonation and forgery, etc. have not even been invoked in the FIR registered by the Chandigarh Police. Be that as it may, during the proc- ess of investigation, necessary steps can be taken by the authorities so as to invoke the provisions of the Indian Pe- nal Code in relation to impersonation, forgery, etc. and in- vestigation in those regards would also be carried out. Confronted with the above facts that have emerged, learned counsel for the respondent-State of Punjab has not been able to justify lodging of the FIR in Punjab. It has been stated by Ms.Rajni Gupta, Additional Advocate Gen- eral, Punjab that the investigation into the case and the file shall be transferred to Chandigarh Police. Adjourned to 13.09.2011. Copy of the order be given under the signatures of the Bench Secretary.” 3. Short affidavit of Avinderbir Singh, PPS, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Crime Branch, has been filed in Court which is taken on record. As per Para 2 of the affidavit, the investigation has been transferred, to be conducted by the Crl. Misc. No. M-23889 of 2011 [6] Chandigarh Police. 4. In view of the fact that investigation has been transferred to Chandigarh Police, this petition is disposed of. 5. Considering the nature of offence committed and its seriousness as also the chequered history noticed while passing order dated 24.8.2011, the Inspector General of Police, Chandigarh, is directed to ensure that speedy and effective investigation is conducted and concluded, preferably within 90 days from today. (AJAI LAMBA) September 13, 2011 JUDGE avin 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?