Delhi High Court - Orders
Ravinder Singh Gandoak vs State & Anr on 3 February, 2023
$~51
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(CRL) 317/2023, CRL.M.A. 2928/2023 & CRL.M.A.
2929/2023.
RAVINDER SINGH GANDOAK ..... Petitioner
Through: Ms. Rebecca M. John, Sr. Adv. with
Mr. Shishir Mathur, Adv.
versus
STATE & ANR. ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Sanjeev Bhandari, ASC for the
State with Kunal Mittal, Mr. Alok
Sharma and Mr. Saurabh Tanwar,
Advs. with SI Surender Singh, PS
Tughlak Road.
Mr. Arvind Nayar, Sr. Adv. with Mr.
Akshay Joshi and Mr. Rajat Asija,
Advs. for R-2.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANISH DAYAL
ORDER
% 03.02.2023
CRL.M.A. 2929/2023
Exemption allowed subject to just exceptions.
W.P.(CRL) 317/2023
1. This petition has been moved for quashing and setting aside order dated 09th January, 2023 passed by the Ld. MM-03, Patiala House Courts in proceedings under FIR No.149/2014 registered under Sections 420/468/471/120B IPC at PS Tughlak Road. Ms. Rebecca John, Ld. Senior Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the gravamen of the issue arises from the impugned order allowing the application under Section 311A Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:MANISH KUMAR Signing Date:06.02.2023 18:28:17 Cr.P.C. preferred by the IO for seeking specimen signatures of the petitioner and two children. It is submitted that under proviso of Section 311A Cr.P.C., these cannot be allowed for the reason that the petitioner and two children have never been arrested in these proceedings prior, however as regards the wife of the petitioner who is the sister of respondent No.2, there are disputes inter se between the wife of the petitioner and respondent No.2 regarding the inheritance of property owned by the late mother for which conflicting testamentary cases were filed in 2014. It is also brought to attention that this FIR was registered in 2014 and the charge-sheet was filed in 2019 and this Court by order dated 09th July, 2021 had allowed further investigation uninfluenced by the observations made by the Ld. MM at that stage and also directed that the supplementary report be filed within six months from that date.
2. According to the Ld. Senior Counsel for the petitioner, the investigation was delayed despite such directions as also the petitioner was arrayed in column 12 of the charge-sheet and the two children, one of whom is resident in Singapore and the other is married and staying in Faridabad were not even part of the charge-sheet. In these circumstances as well as the categorical language of Section 311A Cr.P.C., the Ld. MM ought not to have directed as they did in the impugned order.
3. Issue notice. The Ld. ASC accepts notice and will file a status report/reply before the next date specifically adverting to the contentions made by the Ld. Senior Counsel for the petitioner.
4. Mr. Arvind Nayar, Ld. Senior Counsel appears on behalf of the respondent No.2 and states that he would also like to respond to the same. However, at this stage any detail reply is not necessary on behalf of Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:MANISH KUMAR Signing Date:06.02.2023 18:28:17 respondent No.2 but the Ld. Senior Counsel for the respondent No.2 may file a two page note on the factual aspects of the matter as well as the legal aspects, if so desired, before the next date of hearing.
CRL.M.A. 2928/20231. This application has been moved for stay of operation of impugned order dated 19th January, 2023 passed by the Ld. MM.
2. In view of the submissions made above and the facts and circumstances as evident from the records of the case, the operation of the impugned order be stayed till the next date of hearing.
3. Mr. Nayar, Ld. Senior Counsel for the respondent No.2 submits that since this petition has been moved by the petitioner and not the two children the benefit of this order may not be extended to them.
4. In the considered opinion of this Court since it involves a legal issue relating to the prohibition under the proviso to Section 311A Cr.P.C. and there is nothing on record to suggest that the two children were arrested also in the proceedings, the stay order would operate for the meantime against the petitioner and the two children as well.
5. List on 26th April, 2023.
6. The stay is limited to the operation of the impugned order and the investigation otherwise should be continued unabated.
7. Order be uploaded on the website of this Court.
ANISH DAYAL, J FEBRUARY 3, 202/MK Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:MANISH KUMAR Signing Date:06.02.2023 18:28:17