The Metropolitan
Magistrate, Saket Court recently allowed the complaint of an individual under
Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and directed the
Ambedkar Nagar Police Station, Delhi to register FIR and start investigation in
allegations of forgery against Religare Finvest Limited (“Religare”) and Citifinance Consumer Finance Limited (“Citifinance”).
Magistrate, Saket Court recently allowed the complaint of an individual under
Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and directed the
Ambedkar Nagar Police Station, Delhi to register FIR and start investigation in
allegations of forgery against Religare Finvest Limited (“Religare”) and Citifinance Consumer Finance Limited (“Citifinance”).
By way of facts, the
father of the Complainant had procured a loan from Citifinance sometime in the
year 2007, however subsequently the said loan was assigned by Citifinance in
favour of Religare. Interestingly, the loan was procured only by the father of
the Complainant; was signed by the father of the Complainant and the loan
amount was disbursed in favour of the father of the complainant. While
procuring the loan collateral was offered and which as such belonged to the
father. Thereafter, Certain disputes arose between the father of the
Complainant and Religare.
father of the Complainant had procured a loan from Citifinance sometime in the
year 2007, however subsequently the said loan was assigned by Citifinance in
favour of Religare. Interestingly, the loan was procured only by the father of
the Complainant; was signed by the father of the Complainant and the loan
amount was disbursed in favour of the father of the complainant. While
procuring the loan collateral was offered and which as such belonged to the
father. Thereafter, Certain disputes arose between the father of the
Complainant and Religare.
After lapse of couple
of years, the Complainant received summons from the District Courts in Delhi
wherein allegations were made that the Complainant procured loan from
Citifinance as a co-borrower and failed to repay the same. It was only then that the Complainant became
aware that the signatures of the Complainant were forged on the loan documents,
which as such was only signed by the father of the Complainant.
of years, the Complainant received summons from the District Courts in Delhi
wherein allegations were made that the Complainant procured loan from
Citifinance as a co-borrower and failed to repay the same. It was only then that the Complainant became
aware that the signatures of the Complainant were forged on the loan documents,
which as such was only signed by the father of the Complainant.
The Complainant
approached the local police, however, could not get the FIR registered.
Eventually having failed after following all possible procedures, the
Complainant approached the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate under Section
156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 inter alia seeking directions to
the effect that an FIR be lodged against the concerned employees of Religare
and Citifinance for committing the offence of forgery. The Court while hearing called
for Action Taken Report from the concerned police station.
approached the local police, however, could not get the FIR registered.
Eventually having failed after following all possible procedures, the
Complainant approached the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate under Section
156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 inter alia seeking directions to
the effect that an FIR be lodged against the concerned employees of Religare
and Citifinance for committing the offence of forgery. The Court while hearing called
for Action Taken Report from the concerned police station.
After hearing
extensive arguments and rejecting the reasons cited by the investigating agency
for not registering an FIR, the Court accepted the application filed by the
Complainant and directed registration of FIR.
