More than a decade after an airline complained of an alleged recruitment fraud involving fake job offers and forged communications, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has ordered registration of an FIR after holding that investigation into cognisable offences cannot be substituted by inquiry or complaint proceedings.
Allowing a petition by Tata SIA Airlines Limited way back in 2016, Justice Manisha Batra set aside a Gurugram Magistrate’s 2015 order treating the plea for FIR registration as a private complaint. The Bench directed the police to register a case and proceed in accordance with law.
The ruling came in a matter where the investigation route virtually never took off. Instead, the complaint remained caught between a prolonged police inquiry and complaint proceedings before the court. Justice Batra observed the airline – operating under the “Vistara” brand – had approached the High Court after FIR was not registered on its complaint dated May 29, 2015. The petitioner alleged that its employee misused his official position and access to the company’s systems to create fake email IDs on its server.
Appearing before the Bench on petitioner’s behalf, senior advocate Gaurav Chopra with counsel Seerat Saldi submitted that an internal probe allegedly revealed that the employee, appointed as Senior Manager (IT Lead–Program Delivery), used fabricated identities, contacted job aspirants, issued forged appointment communications and fraudulently induced them to pay money on the false promise of employment.
The inquiry further disclosed that he allegedly forged official letterheads and signatures of senior officials, “thereby impersonating the petitioner and tarnishing its reputation while causing financial loss to unsuspecting individuals. In one instance, a victim reportedly paid approximately Rs 19 lakh,” it was alleged.
Justice Batra’s Bench was told the police did not register an FIR and continued seeking additional information while conducting a preliminary inquiry. The airline then invoked Section 156(3) CrPC before the Magistrate, seeking a direction for FIR registration. The Magistrate, however, treated the matter as a private complaint.
Justice Batra held that a Magistrate was not mechanically bound to direct FIR registration in every case alleging cognisable offence. But such discretion was not unrestrained and was required to be exercised upon application of judicial mind to the nature of allegations, the character of evidence required to establish them and the necessity of police investigation.
“The power to treat an application under Section 156(3) as a private complaint cannot be exercised as a substitute for investigation where the allegations themselves necessitate exercise of statutory powers available only to the investigating agency,” Justice Batra asserted.
The Bench added collection and preservation of server data, retrieval of electronic records, examination of system logs and metadata, tracing of IP addresses, identification of recipients of fraudulent communications, procurement of banking details, seizure and forensic examination of digital devices and identification of other persons involved were investigative measures which could not ordinarily be undertaken by the petitioner.
Relegating the airline to lead preliminary evidence in a complaint case effectively required it to produce material “which, by its very nature, was beyond its reach and capable of being collected only through police investigation,” Justice Batra asserted.
The Court also found fault with the timing and reasoning of the Magistrate’s order, noting that the police inquiry was admittedly still pending when the complaint was converted into a private complaint. “Instead of awaiting culmination of the inquiry the Magistrate proceeded to close the investigative route and relegated the petitioner to complaint proceedings. Such approach defeated the very object underlying investigation into cognizable offences,” the Bench held.
The court added the impugned order merely stated that the matter was not fit for FIR registration without explaining why police investigation was unnecessary despite allegations involving “cyber manipulation, forgery of corporate records, misuse of electronic infrastructure and possible involvement of unidentified persons”.
Calling the exercise of discretion “bereft of reasons”, Justice Batra held that the Magistrate failed to exercise jurisdiction in accordance with settled legal principles. Quashing the October 28, 2015 order, the High Court directed official respondents to register an FIR on the basis of the 2015 complaint “under the appropriate penal provisions, as may be attracted upon examination of the allegations.”
