8/12/2019 Sn Dhingra (2)

1/3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

SUBJECT : QUASHING OF FIR

Crl.M.9398/2005 and 4058/2007 in W.P.(Crl)-1537/2004

Reserved on: 29.10.2007

Date of Decision: 04.12.2007

M.M. Tiwari .......PetitionerThrough : Mr.Reetesh Singh with Mr.Surfaz and

Mr.Rajan Dubey, Advocates.

versus

N.C.T. of Delhi and another ... RespondentsThrough : Ms.Mukta Gupta, Standing Counsel forState. Mr.Harish Gulati, Standing

Counsel for CBI.Mr.Arun Birbal with Ms.Raavi Birbal for R-2.

JUSTICE SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA

ORDERCrl.M. 9398/2005

This application has been made in the writ petition which was disposed of by this

Court vide order dated 21.4.2005. This Court vide the said order had quashed theFIR No.582/2004 After quashing of the FIR by this Court, CBI made this

application on 13.9.2005 seeking permission of the Court to continue with the

enquiry and to act in accordance with law after conclusion of the enquiry. CBI was

not made a party to the petition in question.

2. The relevant facts are that a complaint dated 10.9.2004 was sent by one Shri

Tapesh Pawar, Jt. Secy. , Govt. of India to Delhi Police as well as to CBI alleging

that Mr.M.M. Tiwari, Managing Director of FISHCOPFED had submitted fakePost Graduate Diploma in Business Management (Part Time) purportedly issued

by an Institute called Institute of Personnel Management and Industrial Relation,

Patna. On this complaint Delhi Police registered an FIR and proceeded with the

8/12/2019 Sn Dhingra (2)

2/3

investigation, Mr.M.M. Tiwari, filed a petition for quashing of the FIR on theground that he had been exonerated in a departmental enquiry got conducted by the

Department through a retired Police Offcial. SHO of the concerned P.S. also filed astatus report that pursuant to the departmental enquiry conducted through Mr.Sheo

Raj Singh, DIG Retd. on the orders of President NF of Fishermen's Co-operative

Ltd. and coming to a conclusion that certificate was not forged, the complaint wasfound not correct and no offence was committed. This status report was filed inthis Court on 21.4.2005. A cancellation report was filed by police before MM.

Considering this status report, this Court passed the order quashing FIR.

3. CBI alleged that the Investigating Officer in this case got mixed up with the

accused. CBI had also initiated criminal enquiry after registering the complaint PP-DAI-2004-A-0030 dated 4.11.2004 CBI had called Mr.M.M. Tiwari in the office

on 18.3.2005. Despite this fact, the petitioner had not impleaded CBI as a party andconcealed this fact from this Court. It is submitted by CBI that the alleged diploma

of Mr.M.M. Tiwari bears the signatures of one Mr.M.M. Prasad, as the Director ofthe Institute and Delhi Police had not recorded the statement of Mr.M.M. Prasad.

However, CBI on enquiry traced Mr.M.M. Prasad and wanted to record his

statement with regard to the genuineness and falsity of document in question.

4. The application is opposed by the petitioner on the ground that re-opening of the

enquiry would amount to double jeopardy for the petitioner. The applicant byfiling the present application is trying to over reach and circumvent all the

procedure prescribed under the Cr.P.C. The closure report was filed in the FIR by

the Delhi Police who was investigating agency, CBI was not the investigating

agency. CBI has not registered any FIR. Therefore, CBI could not do anyinvestigation into the case.

5. It is apparent from the record that this Court quashed FIR on the basis of status

report filed by Delhi police wherein police has stated that no crime seem to havebeen committed. This Court at no occasion had considered the merits of the closure

report filed by the police and believed that what was stated in the closure reportwas bona fidely stated. However, even if a closure report is filed by police, the

case does not come to an end for all times to come. A closure report can be filed by

the police when police is unable to find any clue about the commission of the

crime or according to police, the accused is un-traced or police may come toconclusion that the report is false. Filing of a closure report does not close theavenue for the further investigation and re-opening of the case if the police

stumbles upon the evidence and is able to find out who was the offender who

committed the crime etc. The power of further investigation in such cases is alwaysvested in the investigating agency and investigating agency can continue with the

further investigation even after closure report. In the present case the situation is

peculiar. Delhi Police has filed a status report and a closure report saying that no

8/12/2019 Sn Dhingra (2)

3/3

crime was committed; whereas CBI was also proceeding with the enquiry and wastrying to find out Mr.M.M. Prasad who was signatory of the certificate to know

whether document was genuine or not. CBI was able to find out Mr.M.M. Prasad.The report of Delhi Police shows that the alleged institute was running from a

house and the Institute had closed down after a short span of its starting. Despite

the fact that it was an Institute giving degree of MBA, it was not registered anywhere in the country.

7. Considering all these facts, I consider that CBI can continue its enquiry and if itfinds that there was substance in the complaint, it can proceed according to law. I

order accordingly.

8. With the above direction, this application stands disposed of. Crl.M.4058/2007

In view of the orders passed in Crl.M.9398/2005, no orders are required to bepassed on this application. The same is disposed of accordingly.

Sd/-

SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA,J.