Delhi High Court Dismisses Plea for FIR Over Alleged Fabrication of Railway Leave Records: “Mere Allegations of Forgery and Missing Documents Do Not Justify FIR”; Section 156(3) CrPC Cannot Be Invoked for Private Investigations

Court’s Decision

The Delhi High Court dismissed the petition filed under Section 482 CrPC, which sought to challenge the Additional Sessions Judge’s (ASJ) order upholding the Magistrate’s refusal to direct the registration of an FIR under Section 156(3) CrPC. The petitioner alleged that railway officials had fabricated leave records to falsely mark him absent from work.

The High Court ruled that:

• The petitioner had alternative remedies under Section 200 CrPC and could present his evidence before the Magistrate.
• The police investigation was unnecessary as the documents in question were either available with the petitioner or had been declared untraceable by the railway department.
• The lower courts were justified in rejecting the application under Section 156(3) CrPC, as there was no prima facie case requiring police intervention.

Key Holding:

The Court held that mere allegations of forgery and missing documents do not justify police intervention under Section 156(3) CrPC, especially when documentary evidence can be scrutinized through a private complaint under Section 200 CrPC.

Facts of the Case

1. Employment and Duty Responsibilities
   • The petitioner was working as a Khalasi (Plumber) in the Railway Enquiry Office, Tilak Bridge, New Delhi.
   • He was required to mark his attendance on the muster roll and attend to complaints at railway employees’ residences.
   • The complaints were recorded through issue slips, which were attached to the complaint register after the work was completed.
2. Petitioner’s Leave Dispute
   • The petitioner regularly inquired about his accumulated casual leave in May, June, and July 2011.
   • Initially, he was informed that two casual leaves remained unused.
   • However, in October 2011, he was suddenly informed that all of his leave had been exhausted, despite not taking any leave during this period.
3. Discovery of Alleged Forgery
   • Upon further inquiry, the petitioner was shown leave applications allegedly written and signed by him, requesting leave for April 2, 2011, and April 21, 2011.
   • The petitioner denied writing or signing these applications and requested copies, but railway officials refused to provide them.
   • Later, he obtained a copy of the complaint register, which showed that he had attended complaints on those dates, contradicting the leave records.
4. RTI Applications and CIC Orders
   • The petitioner filed an RTI application seeking copies of the muster roll and casual leave register, but no response was given.
   • On the intervention of the Central Information Commission (CIC) on May 25, 2012, the railway authorities were directed to provide the documents.
   • However, the railway officials failed to provide the original muster roll, claiming it was untraceable.
   • In response to further complaints, railway officials submitted an affidavit before the CIC stating that the muster sheets from April 1 to April 25, 2011, were missing.
5. Legal Actions by Petitioner
   • The petitioner alleged that railway officials had intentionally stolen or destroyed the muster roll to cover up the falsification of leave records.
   • He filed a police complaint on July 10, 2013, but no action was taken.
   • He then submitted an application under Section 154(3) CrPC to the Deputy Commissioner of Police (DCP) but received no response.
   • Subsequently, he filed a complaint before the Magistrate, along with an application under Section 156(3) CrPC seeking the registration of an FIR.
   • The Magistrate dismissed the application on January 12, 2015.
6. Further Legal Proceedings
   • On revision, the case was remanded back to the Magistrate for reconsideration.
   • The Magistrate again rejected the application under Section 156(3) CrPC on June 30, 2016.
   • The Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ) upheld this rejection on October 25, 2016.
   • Aggrieved, the petitioner approached the Delhi High Court under Section 482 CrPC.

Issues Before the Court

1. Whether the railway officials had fabricated and concealed official documents regarding the petitioner’s leave.
2. Whether a police investigation was necessary to recover and verify the authenticity of the disputed documents.
3. Whether the rejection of the petitioner’s application under Section 156(3) CrPC was legally justified.

Petitioner’s Arguments

• The railway officials had fabricated and concealed official documents, committing the offenses of forgery and criminal misappropriation of government records.
• The missing muster roll and falsified leave applications required police intervention to recover and authenticate the documents through forensic examination (FSL).
• The petitioner lacked the authority to trace and produce government documents, making police assistance necessary.
• The case of Lalita Kumari v. State of U.P. (2014) 2 SCC 1 mandated preliminary inquiries in forgery cases, justifying police intervention.

Respondent’s Arguments

• The complaint was filed after a delay of two years (October 2013 for an April 2011 incident), raising doubts about its authenticity.
• The muster roll was declared untraceable, and an affidavit had been filed before the CIC confirming its loss.
• The petitioner had already received casual leave records and attendance sheets through RTI, making police intervention unnecessary.
• The application under Section 156(3) CrPC was correctly rejected as the petitioner could pursue a private complaint under Section 200 CrPC.

Legal Analysis

• Section 156(3) CrPC: Empowers the Magistrate to direct police to register an FIR and investigate, but only when evidence cannot be collected by the complainant himself.
• Section 200 CrPC: Allows the complainant to present evidence before the Magistrate, who can summon witnesses and proceed with the case.
• Lalita Kumari v. State of U.P. (2014) 2 SCC 1:
  • The Supreme Court held that preliminary inquiries in forgery cases may be conducted but are not mandatory if the complainant has access to evidence through other means.
• Priyanka Srivastava v. State of U.P. (2015) 6 SCC 287:
  • Held that applications under Section 156(3) CrPC must be supported by an affidavit to prevent frivolous litigation.

Court’s Reasoning

1. Documents were already provided: The petitioner had received relevant records through RTI, and any dispute over their authenticity could be resolved through a private complaint.
2. Police intervention was unnecessary: The alleged fabricated documents could be scrutinized through a trial under Section 200 CrPC, where railway officials could be summoned as witnesses.
3. The muster roll was officially declared untraceable: There was no evidence of deliberate concealment by railway officials beyond procedural lapses.
4. Petitioner delayed filing the complaint: The delay of over two years weakened the case and made police investigation impractical.

Conclusion

• The Delhi High Court upheld the rejection of the FIR application under Section 156(3) CrPC.
• The petitioner was allowed to pursue his claim through a private complaint under Section 200 CrPC.
• The court emphasized that if necessary, the Magistrate could seek police assistance under Section 202 CrPC.
• The petition was dismissed, as there was no legal basis for invoking police investigation.

Implications

1. Reaffirms the limited scope of Section 156(3) CrPC – FIRs cannot be registered merely based on allegations of missing documents.
2. Strengthens the role of private complaints under Section 200 CrPC – Courts can evaluate evidence without police intervention.
3. Prevents misuse of police resources – Routine disputes over government records must be resolved through RTI and judicial proceedings, not criminal investigations.

Also Read – Delhi High Court Modifies Murder Conviction to Culpable Homicide, Citing Absence of Premeditation—”Fatal Blow in Drunken Altercation Does Not Constitute Murder”