Facts
The petitioner wrote to the Economic Offences Wing of the Crime Branch CID on April 25, 2008, alleging that Shri Vijay Kirtilal Mehta, Dr. Narendra Trivedi, and others engaged in a criminal conspiracy in which they forged or caused to be forged various documents, including alleged agreements of assignments, and then presented these documents as genuine while knowing full well that they were forgeries.
And yet, other physicians are still actively practising while an Offence of Criminal Breach of Trust in furtherance of Criminal Conspiracy was charged.
Records reveal that the whole administration of Lilavati Hospital has been abdicated in favour of Shri Dushyant Madhukant Mehta, an incompetent chemist who is in charge of the hospital’s medicinal supply. Records reveal that the whole administration of Lilavati Hospital has been abdicated in favour of Shri Dushyant Madhukant Mehta, an incompetent chemist who is in charge of the hospital’s medicinal supply.
The Public Charitable Trust, which the state helped fund, suffered a massive loss due to the hospital trust. Petitioner further alleges that Shri Sharan P. Khanna, Chief promoter of Golden sea shell Co-operative Housing society Ltd., with an address at 309, Dalamal Tower, Nariman Point, Mumbai-21 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Golden’), and Shri Jagdish B Ahuja, proprietor of Ahuja platinum Properties, Bandra (hereinafter referred to as ‘Ahuja’), have cheated the Trust out of millions of rupee
Petitioner’s complaint boils down to the following: from February 2005 to June 2005, Shri Vijay Kirtilal Mehta, in criminal conspiracy with others, engaged in a series of criminal acts of criminal breach of trust that had a devastating impact on the Trust’s finances, including the theft of approximately Rs 13.67 crores in questionable, illegal, and unsustainable dealings for his own benefit.
Petitioner claims police were unfair in their handling of the situation since they did not file a First Information Report (FIR) or a criminal case and conduct a full investigation into the allegations.
In response to the failure to register a FIR, the petitioner filed a Writ Petition in the High Court seeking mandamus.
Issue
- Can a complaint be filed with a magistrate instead of the police if there is no witness or complainant?
- Whether a complaint before a magistrate was maintainable if it did not meet the requirements of Section 2(d) since it sought simply an action under Section 156(3).
Contentions
- Plaintiff- The petitioner claims, Shri Vijay Kirtilal Mehta was the Trustee in charge and control of the affairs of Lilavati Hospital and Medical research Centre, but he was fired for criminal misappropriation of property by the Joint Charity Commissioner.
- Defendant- The State of Maharashtra and the Additional Commissioner of Police, Economic Offences wing, Mumbai, both filed responses opposing the plea. Dr. Narendra Trivedi and seven others filed applications to intervene in the writ suit as well. It was argued that a conflict existed between the petitioner and Trustee Vijay Mehta over the Lilavati Hospital trust, and that it was important to determine whether or not the complaint had cognizable character. Therefore, it was decided to launch an initial investigation. The police department that received the complaint/application determined that the matter of whether or not the Trustees had the power to conduct the transactions in question fell within the purview of the Charity Commissioner, Worli, in Mumbai.
Judgement
In most cases, a complainant must follow the procedures outlined in Section 154 of the Criminal Procedure Code before the magistrate may use the authority granted to them by Section 190 of the Criminal Procedure Code. However, there is a possibility that the police will be slow to respond in some situations, which could lead to the destruction of any evidence that was collected. Therefore, the applicant may submit their request to the magistrate. A petition filed in accordance with subsection 156(3) of the Code cannot be strictly regarded as a complaint filed in accordance with subsection 2(d) of the Code inasmuch as it specifies facts that constitute elements of a punishable crime. This Petition is able to be Maintained Before the Magistrate. The Writ Petition was Granted by the High Court, and the Rules Have Been Made Consequently.
Conclusion
In the instance of Lalita Kumari, it was decided that the filing of a First Information Report (FIR) was required under any and all circumstances. Despite the fact that it is not conclusive evidence, it is the initial source of information, and it must be documented in all cases where it can be considered relevant. In order for the police officers to adhere to the directives provided by the Supreme Court, there are certain very specific measures that they need to do.
written by Samarth Agarwal, NMIMS, Navi Mumbai, 2nd year
0 Comments