Delhi District Court
H.C. Ilyas Ahmed vs State on 18 May, 2012
IN THE COURT OF MS. SAVITA RAO, ADDITIONAL
SESSIONS JUDGE01, NORTH, DELHI
Crl. Rev. No.: 145/2011
CC/FIR no. : 295/01
P.S. : Timarpur
U/s : 218/34 IPC
Case ID No. : 02401R0490872011
IN THE MATTER OF :
H.C. Ilyas Ahmed
No. 777/N, R/o V24, Gali no. 27
Vijay Park, Moujpur, Delhi
.................Petitioner
Vs.
State
.............Respondent
Date of Institution : 21.10.2011
Date of Arguments : 27.4.2012 & 16.5.2012
Date of Order : 18.05.2012
ORDER
1. This is a revision petition filed by the petitioner aggrieved by the orders of Ld. Trial Court dated 27.7.2011 and 23.9.2011 whereby charge was framed against the petitioner u/s 218/34 IPC.
2. The facts relevant for the purpose of disposal of instant revision petition are that a complaint was lodged by one Tarun Kaushik Crl. Rev. No.: 145/2011 1/7 with respect to theft of his vehicle bearing no. HR26K0090 and on the basis of his complaint, FIR no. 89/2000 was registered. During investigation of the said case, DD no. 17A dated 29.11.2000 was lodged at P.S. Timarpur whereby it was informed that the said stolen vehicle had been recovered in Gujarat and the accused had been remanded in judicial custody. Upon the said information petitioner herein who was the IO of the said case, formally arrested the accused and filed the charge sheet in FIR no. 89/2000 in the court. However Ld. Trial declined to take cognizance against accused Suresh as no recovery was effected from him . In the said charge sheet, it was submitted that SI Vijay Pal Singh alongwith Ct. Karambir both of AATS staff had gone to Gujarat in connection with investigation of FIR no. 389/2000, P.S. Preet Vihar where they recovered the TATA Sumo Vehicle from one Mohan Bhai Atma Ram Prajapati. The said vehicle when recovered carried the fake number UP025549. ASI Vijaypal alongwith Ct. Karambir prepared the seizure memo u/s 102 Cr.P.C. with respect to the said vehicle which showed that the said vehicle was recovered from the possession of Mohan Bhai Atma Ram Prajapati. They interrogated Mohan Bhai and found him to be innocent buyer who had purchased the said vehicle after paying Rs. 3.5 Lacs. But the documents for the said consideration was not seized by the ASI Vijay Pal. Thereafter H.C. Iliyas Ahmed i.e. the petitioner herein being the IO of case FIR no. 89/2000, after getting the relevant documents and memos from the ASI Vijay Pal, fabricated the statements of ASI Crl. Rev. No.: 145/2011 2/7 Vijay Pal Singh and Ct. Karambir and twisted the facts and recorded another confessional statement of accused Suresh stating that the vehicle in question had been recovered from his possession. On the basis of above facts, Ld. Trial court declined to take cognizance against accused Suresh and at the same time, directed the Commissioner of Police and DCP (North) for taking appropriate action against the offenders namely Iliyas Ahmed, Vijay Pal and Karambir for committing the offence of screening the offender. The FIR was accordingly registered upon the said order of Ld. Trial court and the charge sheet was filed against the petitioner u/s 218 IPC, whereas ASI Vijaypal Singh and Ct. Karambir were kept in Column number 12 for want of evidence. All the above accused persons were summoned by the trial court and after hearing the parties, Ld. Trial court proceeded ahead to frame charge against all the accused persons except accused Usha Sharma who was discharged by Ld. Trial court.
3. It is stated on behalf of the petitioner that the order of Ld. Trial court is erroneous, perverse and contrary to law. It is further stated that no prima facie case is made out against the petitioner as the petitioner had never visited Gujarat alongwith SI VijayPal Sing and Ct. Karamvir in the investigation of case FIR no. 389/2000, P.S. Preet Vihar and the recovery of vehicle was not effected by the petitioner nor he was present there in Gujarat on 21.11.2000 when the vehicle was seized u/s 102 Cr.P.C. It is stated that the petitioner made formal arrest of accused Suresh who on interrogation made the disclosure statement which was recorded by the Crl. Rev. No.: 145/2011 3/7 petitioner alongwith statements u/s 161 Cr.P.C. of SI Vijay Pal Singh and Ct. Karamvir and denial of their statements u/s 161 Cr.P.C. was during the recording of statement by Ld. Magistrate as court witnesses when the petitioner was not even present in the court.
4. It may be mentioned that as soon as the petitioner received the documents i.e. DD no. 17A and all other relevant papers like seizure memo of the recovery, statements u/s 161 Cr.P.C. and disclosure statement of Suresh, it was obligatory upon him to conduct the further investigation in appropriate manner and also to verify the links which had not been established so far. He made the formal arrest of accused Suresh in FIR no. 89/2000, PS. Timarpur and also recorded afresh disclosure statement of Suresh which was contrary to the disclosure statement already recorded by Inspector Vijay Pal and according to this new disclosure statement, accused Suresh himself had stolen the vehicles from Delhi and had further sold it which was never the basis of case of raiding team led by Inspector Vijay Pal. Based upon this fresh disclosure statement and without trying to verify or establish the left links, the charge sheet was filed before the court which invited the ire of the trial court whereby not only accused Suresh was discharged but action was also directed to be taken against the police officials including the petitioner herein.
5. After the charge sheet was filed in the instant matter, it was also brought on record that during the investigation of FIR no. 89/2000 of Crl. Rev. No.: 145/2011 4/7 P.S. Timarpur, the petitioner fabricated the statements of SI Vijay Pal and Ct. Karambir as both of them had deposed before the court that they had not given any statement to the petitioner. The petitioner after receipt of the documents also did not take any pain to know the truth as to who is the offender in the case and against whom action is required to be taken and as already observed simply based upon the disclosure statement of Suresh, rather made Mohan Bhai Atma Ram Prajapati as prosecution witness despite the fact that the vehicle in question was recovered from the possession of Mohan Bhai Atma Ram Prajapati. It was for the IO of the case FIR no. 89/2000 to collect all the evidence before giving clean chit to Mohan Bhai Atma Ram with respect to his plea of being bonafide purchaser.
6. The argument of Ld. Counsel for petitioner that Mohan Bhai Atma Ram Prajapati had already been given clean chit by Inspector Vijay Pal is not totally correct as per record since the seizure memo alongwith all the documents were handed over to the petitioner herein by Inpsector Vijay Pal who was required to investigate the matter independently unaffected from the previous interrogation, if he was able to find something new. Rather it was H.C. Illiyas i.e. the petitioner herein who himself prepared the documents pertaining to involvement of accused Suresh even in absence of any recovery at his instance with respect to FIR no. 89/2000, P.S. Timarpur. It may be noted that accused Suresh had been arrested by Inspector Vijay Pal not because of the recovery of the vehicle Crl. Rev. No.: 145/2011 5/7 of the instant matter but because of his involvement in many other cases which fact was never considered by IO of FIR no. 89/2000 i.e the petitioner herein. Rather he was supposed to enquire about the truth of his case since in the instant matter no recovery had been effected from accused Suresh , therefore, it was incumbent upon him to go to the root of the matter which was never done by him. In these circumstances to the extent of observations of Ld. Trial court with respect to the conduct of petitioner in shielding the real offender and prosecuting the person against whom no recovery in the FIR no. 89/2000 had been effected is correct.
7. As there are also the allegations of bringing on record the incorrect documents with intent to screen the real offender as well as to prosecute the person against whom there was no evidence on record, the requirement of section 218 IPC against the petitioner are fulfilled and to this extent, I do not find any infirmity or illegality in the observations of Ld. Trial court with respect to allegations of misuse and abuse of the power vested in him.
8. Though it was argued on behalf of petitioner that the statements of Inspector Vijay Pal and Ct. Karambir were recorded without offering the opportunity to the petitioner for cross examination , however it may be noted that this is the stage of framing of charge only and petitioner would be at liberty to cross examine the witnesses during the trial. It was also the submission of counsel for petitioner that the charge sheet was thoroughly checked by the then SHO Usha Sharma who was Crl. Rev. No.: 145/2011 6/7 equally responsible but has been discharged, therefore on the ground of parity, the petitioner also deserves discharge from the case. The petitioner was the IO of FIR no. 89/2000 whereas the charge sheet had been filed by the then SHO in supervisory capacity whereby it cannot be concluded that she was aware of the recording of incorrect statements by IO and also of the fact that without verifying the documents the charge sheet had been prepared by him. Even otherwise, if one alleged offender has been discharged, it does not give any right in favour of the petitioner to seek the discharge though it would be for the prosecution to press the charges against the discharged person, if they find any substance in the same.
9. Accordingly, finding no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order qua accused/petitioner H.C. Illiyas, present revision petition filed by the petitioner is dismissed. TCR alongwith copy of this order be sent back to the trial court. Revision file be consigned to Record Room.
(SAVITA RAO) Additional Sessions Judge01 (North) Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi Announced in the open court today i.e. on 18.05.2012 Crl. Rev. No.: 145/2011 7/7