Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Integrated with over 4 crore judgments and laws — designed for legal practitioners, researchers, students and institutions

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 9, Cited by 0]

Delhi District Court

(2) Seema Poddar vs State on 24 July, 2014

 IN THE COURT OF SH. YASHWANT KUMAR: ADDL SESSIONS 
                       JUDGE­03: NW : ROHINI : DELHI

Criminal Revision No. 3/14

(1)     Manoj Poddar 
        s/o Sh. Arjun Poddar,
        r/o A­743, Mangolpuri, 
        Delhi.

(2)     Seema Poddar 
        s/o Manoj Poddar, 
        r/o A­743, Mangolpuri, 
        Delhi.                                      ...   Revisionists


                                        Versus 


State
(NCT of Delhi)                                      ...   Respondent

O R D E R

1. The present revision petition has been filed U/s 397/399 Cr.P.C. for setting aside the impugned order dt. 28.11.2013 passed by Sh. Vipin Kharb, Ld. MM, Rohini Courts, Delhi in case FIR no. 200/12, PS Mangol Puri.

2. TCR has already been summoned. I have heard Ld. Crl. R. No. 03/14 Manoj Poddar & Ors. Page 1 of 4 Counsel for the revisionists and Ld. Addl. PP for the State/respondent and have perused the materials on record.

3. The revisionists have taken the grounds among others that the Ld. MM has totally failed to consider that the contents of the protest petition, had clearly proved the justified and lawful grounds for satisfying the conditions that IO had not investigate the matter properly. The IO has submitted final report intentionally with collusion of accused persons. The Ld. Trial Court has committed the gross error of law on the face of the record and there is no hope for justice by the same IO. The complainant/revisionist had filed a CD before the Ld. Trial Court in which the IO clearly admitted that the matter is related to kidnapping and all the household articles and other articles removed by the accused persons. The IO has recorded the statement of accused Tony but not recorded the others due to the collusion with them. IO has not recorded the statement of any witness or neighbour of complainants, which clearly shows that the IO is in collusion with the accused. HC Chander Bhan recorded the statement of complainant and has stated that the matter comes under Section 365/34 IPC but in the face of record and statement of Crl. R. No. 03/14 Manoj Poddar & Ors. Page 2 of 4 complainants, the case clearly comes u/s 344, 347, 364A, 380, 406, 420 and 34 of IPC. HC Chander Bhan is also involved in collusion with the accused.

4. The revisionists have further taken the ground that the complainant filed a complaint against HC Chandra Bhan of PS Mangolpuri, Delhi on 14.03.2012 to the Commissioner of Police, Police Head quarters, New Delhi, Hon'ble Chief Justice of Delhi High Court, Hon'ble Supreme Court, DCP concerned, DCP Vigilance, SHO PS Mangolpuri, Delhi and Chairman National Human Right Commission and due to this complaint and collusion with the accused persons HC Chander Bhan did this with the complainants.

5. In the impugned order dt. 28.11.2013, the Ld. MM stated that IO of the case filed call details records of the complainant along with the challan which revealed that the accused was using his mobile phone regularly from 20.03.2012 to 28.03.2012 i.e. the date between which the accused alleged that he was kidnapped. IO further submitted before the Ld. MM that he had recorded statement of Durga and Tony who stayed adjacent to the house No. E­365, Mangol Puri i.e. the place where the accused alleged that he was Crl. R. No. 03/14 Manoj Poddar & Ors. Page 3 of 4 kept in custody during his kidnapping. Both witnesses stated that they had not seen any unknown person in the house No. E­365. However, the complainant stated that on 28.03.2013 (28.03.2012), around 50 persons came to his house i.e. A­743, Mangol Puri with knife, sword and cutting machine and forcibly broke open his house but the IO did not investigate the same. On submission of the above, the Ld. MM directed the IO to investigate regarding the incident of 28.03.2012 and file further report.

6. I have carefully gone through the documents and materials placed on record and also perused the impugned order dt. 28.11.2013. Considering the facts & circumstances of the case, the impugned order dated 28.11.2013, I am of the considered opinion that the Ld. MM has rightly passed the order directing the IO to further investigate the matter regarding incident dt. 28.03.2012 and filing of the report. This revision petition is devoid of any merits and the same is dismissed. TCR along with copy of this order be sent back and thereafter revision file be consigned to Record Room. 

Announced in Open Court                               (YASHWANT KUMAR)   
on 24.07.2014                                            ASJ/NW­03/ROHINI/DELHI

Crl. R. No. 03/14 Manoj Poddar & Ors.                                     Page 4 of 4