Delhi District Court
Padam Singh vs The State on 13 December, 2021
: 1:
IN THE COURT OF SH. NAVEEN KUMAR KASHYAP
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-04:CENTRAL
DISTRICT
TIS HAZARI: NEW DELHI
Unique ID/CNR No. : DLCT01-000940-2021
CR Number : 10/2021
PS : Maurice Nagar
U/S : 279,304A IPC
PADAM SINGH
S/O LATE TILAK RAM
R/O H.NO. A-91, GALI NO.2.
PATEL VIHAR, KARAWAL NAGAR,
DELHI-110094.
............ Revisionist/Accused
versus
1. THE STATE
THROUGH NCT OF DELHI.
AT NEW DELHI.
2. RAJBIR SINGH
S/O HARPREET SINGH
R/O F-50, 1ST FLOOR,
MANSAROVAR GARDEN,
RAMESH NAGAR, NEW DELHI.
3. UNKNOWN CO-ACCUSED
WHOSE NAME HAS NOT BEEN
REVEALED TO REVISIONIST.
......Respondent
Crl. Rev.: 10/2021 Padam Singh v. State P. No. 1 of 9
: 2:
ORDER
1. The present Revision has been filed by the revisionist Padam Singh, father of the deceased Ankit Kumar against the impugned order dated 23.12.2020 in Case no. 6696/2020, PS:
Maurice Nagar whereby, inter-alia, Ld. MM, Ms. Geeta, Central District, Tis Hazari Court, Delhi was pleased to take no action on such application u/s 156 (3) Cr.P.C. filed by revisionist.
2. In nutshell, it is argued by Ld. Counsel for revisionist that Ld. Trial court erred in not appreciating that the concerned police official has not invoked appropriate sections of IPC and therefore investigation is not carried out for the offence U/s 302 IPC. Instead of the same, it is being carried out U/s 279, 304 A IPC only. It is further argued that same is leading to miscarriage of justice. It is further argued that because of certain internal arrangements and directions there is separate wing within Delhi Police to conduct investigation for road accidents U/s 279/304A IPC. As such it is argued that it is the grievance of revisionist that despite availability of incriminating material and eye witnesses, and because of the fact that present case is not investigated by regular police official of the Police Station concerned the aspect of 302 IPC is not investigated. It is further argued the Ld. Trial court failed to appriciate the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case Sakiri vasu Vs. State of UP, and as such failed to discharge function of supervising the investigating agency despite such facts and Crl. Rev.: 10/2021 Padam Singh v. State P. No. 2 of 9 : 3: circumstances. It is further stated that many lapses in the part of IO, including not collecting CCTV Footage, the natural eye witnesses present near the place of incident/ Khalsa College, not rightly appreciating the PM report. As such it is argued that present case of murder is being converted into a road accident case.
As such it is prayed that present revision petition be allowed and complaint case filed by revisionist be restored. It is further prayed that order dated 23.12.2020 in the application u/s 156(3) Cr. P.C. and application u/s 190/200 Cr. P.C. in present case be set aside. It is further prayed that appropriate directions be issued to investigating agency to invoke/ lodge appropriate sections in FIR No. 07/2020, PS: Maurice Nagar i.e. 302 IPC and further lodge a case u/s 217, 218, 219 IPC against the IO. It is further prayed that direction be issued to the trial court to monitor the FIR 07/2020.
3. On the other hand, it is argued by Ld. Addl. PP for the state that an FIR is already registered in the present case bearing no. 07/2020. As such it is further argued that IO is suppose to examine all the aspects, including 302 IPC if so made out at all, in the opinion of IO.
4. It is further argued by Ld counsel for proposed accused/ respondent no. 2 Rajbeer Singh that accused himself took the victim to hospital. That it is a case unfortunately for road accident, if so at all. It is further submitted that accused himself handed over the mobile. It is further stated that DAR is already filed. It is further submitted that as per inspection of Crl. Rev.: 10/2021 Padam Singh v. State P. No. 3 of 9 : 4: motor cycle, it is a case of accident. It is further submitted that directions for monitoring the incident issued by Ld. MM already.
5. This Revisionist court has heard all the side and gone through the record, including the Trial court record.
6. As per record, it is clear that Ankit Kumar, S/o revisionist Padam Singh expired in the incident in question on 06.02.2020. Further, a FIR is already registered in this regard. But the grievance of the revisionist is that same is malafidely registered and investigated as if it is a road accident case. Whereas it is a case of murder which is also clear from the statement of one eye witness cited by the revisionist, namely, one Sanjay S/o Siyaram, and such Sanjay claimed that he saw two sikh boys coming out of Mahindra ZUV 300 car white colour No. DL 10 CM 7334 in question and one of them kicked the deceased/motor cyclist and both of such sick boys even beaten and abused such deceased, including hitting with fist blow on the chest and kicking on stomach and chest.
It is also clear that in order to expedite the investigation, trial and compensation aspect in road accident cases in Delhi, certain directions are passed for speedy investigation of such road accident cases by special wing of Delhi Police. But same does not mean that if during investigation of a case, which initially considered as road accident case u/s 279/304 A IPC, later on if during investigation on the basis of incriminating material, in form of documents/CCTV Footage or/and eye witnesses, it comes to Crl. Rev.: 10/2021 Padam Singh v. State P. No. 4 of 9 : 5: light that it is a offence for 302 IPC or any other as per facts, still investigation would not be made and finding would not be given by the IO in this regard. And it would not be correct on part of concerned police official/IO to continue to investigate for offence u/s 279/304 A IPC.
7. With this background, it can be seen in the present case revisionist filed an application u/s 156(3) for registration of FIR under appropriate sections of IPC that is 302 IPC r/w 217/218/219. Further, the present revisionist prayed to trial court to monitor the investigation. But vide impugned order dated 23.12.2020, it was noted by learned trial court that no action is required under such application u/s 156(3) Cr.p.C. filed by revisionist as at that stage, an FIR u/s 7/2020 u/s 279/304A IPC was already stand registered and investigation was going on. It was further held by learned trial court that investigation is the job/duty of the police official and court should refrain from interfering in the duty of police officials unless and until there is miscarriage of justice caused to the applicant. It was further held by learned trial court that present revisionist/complainant would get and opportunity at the time of framing of charge to raise his contention regarding adding of additional sections. It was further held that he can move application for monitoring if he has apprehension regarding investigation not done in fair manner.
8. Although, it was correctly held by learned trial court that an FIR is already registered and rest is the matter of investigation. But having noted so, this revisionist court finds Crl. Rev.: 10/2021 Padam Singh v. State P. No. 5 of 9 : 6: that vide the impugned application in question u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. itself, at that stage itself, the revisionist raised serious doubt about the fairness of investigation including biasness that it is being investigated on the aspect of section 279/304A IPC only, and not on the aspect of section 302 IPC despite citing an eye witness. In case, such eye witness is making false statement, then needless to say, appropriate action can be taken against such witness. But the IO whether it is of local police station or of special wing is bound to investigate on all aspects and give his findings why an offence under section 302 IPC is not made out when there is certain medical reports in this regard coupled with eye witness. Such finding in writing are supposed to be given by IO including for the purpose of its judicial review as well as monitoring by higher police official as to why an offence u/s 302 IPC and for that matter under any other section is made out or not, as per investigation carried out by him.
9. In this background, learned trial court held and observed that investigation is the job of police official/IO and court should generally refrain in interfering the same, as also held by Hon'ble Supreme Court from time to time. But at the same time, as also held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of "Sakiri Vasu", as also relied by learned counsel for revisionist that in appropriate cases when investigation is not carried out in fair manner, MM is supposed to interfere and monitor. Further, the observation by learned court in such impugned order dated 23.12.2020 that complainant can move Crl. Rev.: 10/2021 Padam Singh v. State P. No. 6 of 9 : 7: appropriate application for monitoring the investigation is contrary to record, as such application was already moved by that time. Further, in the allegations made, prima facie, it is a fit case where trial court should have monitored the investigation to ensure the fairness to all the concerned, when completing theories regarding road accident vis-a-vis murder is raised by accused and complainant side.
9. Further, learned trial court held that complainant would get opportunity at the stage of framing of charges for pressing additional sections at the stage of framing charge. But it must be remembered that unless cognizance is taken of an offence, otherwise it would prejudice the accused too.
10. But having noted so, it is also a settled law now that complainant/ victim side has a right to file "protest petition"
and Ilaka MM is having ample power not to accept the final report filed by IO as well as to send back the same for further investigation or even otherwise take cognizance of the offence not mentioned in the chargesheet as per the opinion/investigation by the IO like mentioning section 279 and 304A IPC and not 302 IPC.
11. Further, it may be noted for sake of record that cognizance is taken of offence and not the offender. Further, full form of FIR is "first information report". Thus, it is not final but just starting point and who are the offender and for what offenes has to be decided by IO and in fact by the criminal justice itself as per law and procedure already settled in this regard.
Crl. Rev.: 10/2021 Padam Singh v. State P. No. 7 of 9 : 8:
12. But having noted so, this court finds force in the grievance of the revisionist that when necessary material not collected and case is not investigated from the point of murder apart from road accident, therefore, truth cannot be found out.
13. Further, it may be mentioned that by the impugned order learned trial court held that application u/s 190 r/w 200 Cr.P.C. is not required, as such same was dismissed. Such, order of learned trial court is not legally tenable, as in any case, the learned trial court could not have dismissed such complaint u/s 200 r/w 190 Cr.P.C. Learned trial court is bound to proceed further as per law, independent of investigation carried out by police, with such private complaint u/s 200 Cr.P.C. filed by complainant. In fact there is subsequent provision and procedure in this regard including in the section of 210 Cr.P.C.
14. In this background of facts and the law discussed above, present revision petition is disposed of /partly allowed with following directions:
(i) Having regard to the material placed on record, it is directed to learned Ilaka MM to monitor the investigation, carried out by the police in the FIR no. 07/2020 in question.
(ii) The revisionist is at liberty to raise the issue of invoking section 302 IPC before the IO concerned during investigation stage, if still left or otherwise needless to say he can file a protest petition in this regard which would be decided as per law.
(iii) In case, during investigation or thereafter at the stage of protest petition or even otherwise, it is found by Ilaka Crl. Rev.: 10/2021 Padam Singh v. State P. No. 8 of 9 : 9: magistrate that offences other than 279/304 A IPC are attracted, then needless to say then investigation regarding the same would be carried out by the competent police official to carry out investigation of offences of such nature/type.
(iv) The private complaint filed by the present revisionist/complainant u/s 200 Cr.P.C. r/w 190 Cr.P.C., which was dismissed vide impugned order dated 23.12.2020 stands restored. Learned Ilaka Magistrate is directed to deal with the same further as per law and observation made above.
15. With these findings, observations and directions, present revision petition is disposed of accordingly.
16. The revisionist is directed to appear before learned trial court in view of above directions on 20.12.2021 at 12 noon.
17. Learned Trial Court Record be sent back with copy of this order. Revision file be consigned to Record Room after completion of all other necessary formalities. A copy of this order be given dasti free of cost to the revisionist and respondent.
Announced in the open court on 13thDecember,2021.
(NAVEEN KUMAR KASHYAP) REVISIONIST COURT/ ASJ-04 CENTRALDISTRICT:TIS HAZARI:
DELHI.
Crl. Rev.: 10/2021 Padam Singh v. State P. No. 9 of 9