Delhi High Court - Orders
Mrs. Rinky Rastogi vs State Of Nct Of Delhi And Ors on 25 April, 2022
Author: Prateek Jalan
Bench: Prateek Jalan
$~41
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(CRL) 892/2022 & CRL.M.A. 7580/2022
MRS. RINKY RASTOGI ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Rakesh Kumar Singh,
Advocate with Petitioner in person.
[Mob. 9810183600]
versus
STATE OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Ms. Nandita Rao, ASC for the
State with W/SI Soni Lal, PS
Rajinder Nagar, Delhi.
Mr. Ashok Chhabaria, Advocate
for R-6.
Mr. Manish Gandhi, Advocate for
R-7 & 8.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN
ORDER
% 25.04.2022 CRL.M.A. 7581/2022 (for exemption) Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions. The application stands disposed of.
W.P.(CRL) 892/2022 and CRL.M.A. 7580/2022
1. By way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner, who is the complainant in proceedings arising out of FIR No. 63/2017, dated 20.05.2017, registered at Police Station Rajinder Nagar, under Sections 498A/406 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, seeks Signature Not Verified Digitally signed By:SHITU NAGPAL Signing Date:26.04.2022 11:43:12 W.P.(CRL) 892/2022 Page 1 of 4 the following relief: -
"a) issue an appropriate writ and/or may pass order/direction for conducting a fresh investigation or re-
investigation honestly, fairly, justly, truthfully, properly and legally without any bias and influence of previous investigation, the case of the petitioner/complainant as arising in respect of FIR No.63/17 dated 20.05.2017 U/S- 498A/406/34 I.P.C. P.S. Rajinder Nagar, New Delhi, by a higher police officer of not less than rank of ACP, Delhi Police, within a time bound manner including by collecting all left out/fresh evidences from the petitioner/complainant side as per law in the interest of justice.
b) order specially directing/ordering the investigation previously carried and charge sheet/final report dated 06.07.19 already filed by Police on 07.08.19 in the then court of Ms. Ambika Singh, MM/Central (U/S-173 of Cr.P.C. U/S-498A/406/34 I.P.C.) as submitted by police in FIR No.63/17 dated 20.05.2017 U/S-498A/406/34 I.P.C. P.S. Rajinder Nagar, New Delhi, presently pending consideration/prosecution in the court of Ms. Poorva Mehra, MM, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in Ct. Case/10307/2019, not to form part of the record of the case being result of entirely unfair, tainted, undesirable or being upon no truth but being unjust and improper investigation, while doing the fresh investigation/re-investigation of the case of the petitioner/complainant for filing of fresh charge sheet/final report upon investigation nor the same case i.e. Ct. Case/10307/2019 be allowed to be proceeded with before the present court (or the successor court), including for the fresh consequential cognizance and trial proceeding before the competent court as per law in the interest of justice."
2. Mr. Rakesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, relies upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Vinay Tyagi vs. Irshad and Others (2013) 5 SCC 762, to submit that, in an appropriate case, the High Court may direct for fresh investigation/re-investigation and also direct Signature Not Verified Digitally signed By:SHITU NAGPAL Signing Date:26.04.2022 11:43:12 W.P.(CRL) 892/2022 Page 2 of 4 that the trial will not proceed on the basis of the charge sheet filed by the prosecution. Mr. Singh draws my attention to several alleged shortcomings in the investigation, as enumerated in the writ petition, in support of his contention that the present case is one of the rare cases in which this Court ought to exercise this power in terms of the decision in Vinay Tyagi (supra).
3. Ms. Nandita Rao, learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State, who appears upon advance notice, submits to the contrary that the grounds relied upon by the petitioner are, in fact, the grounds upon which the petitioner could have approached the Trial Court for further investigation under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. She submits that the charge sheet was filed on 07.08.2019 after which the petitioner has neither filed any application for further investigation nor moved this Court for the relief now sought, after the passage of two and a half years. By way of example, Ms. Rao submits that the petitioner seeks to rely upon the transcripts of certain telephonic conversations in absence of the original telephones being available. Ms. Rao submits that, in such circumstances, it is open to the petitioner to move the Trial Court for forensic examination of the recordings supplied by the petitioner.
4. Having regard to Ms. Rao's submissions, Mr. Singh submits that the petitioner may be permitted, at this stage, to approach the Trial Court for appropriate relief without prejudice to her right to invoke appropriate remedies before this Court in the event the Trial Court finds that the grounds raised by the petitioner do not fall within the scope of its jurisdiction to direct further investigation.
5. In view of the above, the petition is dismissed as withdrawn, Signature Not Verified Digitally signed By:SHITU NAGPAL Signing Date:26.04.2022 11:43:12 W.P.(CRL) 892/2022 Page 3 of 4 without prejudice to the rights and remedies of the petitioner before the Trial Court. If the petitioner is so advised, it will be open to her to invoke appropriate remedies if the Trial Court passes an order adverse to her, including on the ground that the relief sought by her does not fall within the scope of further investigation or is otherwise beyond the powers of the Trial Court.
6. The petition, alongwith the pending application, stands disposed of with these directions.
PRATEEK JALAN, J APRIL 25, 2022 'Bhupi'/ Click here to check corrigendum, if any Signature Not Verified Digitally signed By:SHITU NAGPAL Signing Date:26.04.2022 11:43:12 W.P.(CRL) 892/2022 Page 4 of 4