Delhi High Court - Orders
Soumitra Kumar Nahar vs State Govt Of Nct Of Delhi on 21 December, 2020
Author: Vibhu Bakhru
Bench: Vibhu Bakhru
$~57
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(CRL) 1708/2020
SOUMITRA KUMAR NAHAR ..... Petitioner
Through: Ms Geeta Luthra, Sr. Advocate with
Mr Attin Rastogi, Advocate.
versus
STATE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI ..... Respondent
Through: Mr Rahul Mehra, Standing Counsel
with Mr Chaitanya Gosain, Advocate
for State.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU
ORDER
% 21.12.2020 [Hearing held through videoconferencing]
1. The petitioner has filed the present petition, inter alia, praying as under:-
"a) to issue an appropriate writ/order/direction in nature of Mandamus be issued directing the appropriate investigating officer to conduct further and fair investigation in FIR 153/2018, Under Section 354 IPC and Section 7,8,10,21(1) POCSO Act;
b) to issue an appropriate writ/order/direction in nature of certiorari for setting aside the impugned order dated 27.08.2020 passed by Ld. ASJ, (POCSO Act), South East, Saket, New Delhi."
2. The petitioner‟s grievance relates to the manner in which the Signature Not Verified digitally signed by:DUSHYANT RAWAL investigation is conducted in FIR No.153/2018 under Section 354 of the IPC and Sections 7, 8, 10 and 21(1) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act).
3. The victim - a girl aged about 15 years - is the petitioner‟s daughter. It is alleged that she was subjected to sexual assaults when she was 11/12 years of age. A final report was filed under Section 178(2) of the Cr.PC and cognizance of the offence was taken against the accused Avinash Dixit and one Ms „P‟ (name withheld). Ms „P‟ is the mother of the victim and the estranged wife of the petitioner. It is alleged that the accused Avinash Dixit, who had allegedly committed the offence against the victim, used to visit Ms P at her residence.
4. The victim was studying in a boarding school and used to visit her mother (P) while on vacation/ school holidays. It is alleged that the accused Avinash Dixit used to also visit the residence of the mother (P) and had committed the assaults on the victim, while the victim was in care of her mother. It is alleged that the victim had written a letter on 17.07.2018 and handed over the same to the matron of the hostel. She had also allegedly confided in her and informed her about the assaults. It is stated that the said matron had reported the same to the Principal. According to the petitioner, said matron is important witness and her testimony would be vital for the prosecution. The petitioner‟s grievance is that she had not been arrayed as a witness.
5. In addition to the above, the petitioner contends that the investigating officer has neither examined the neighbours to establish that the accused Avinash Dixit was present at the place, where the offence is alleged to have Signature Not Verified digitally signed by:DUSHYANT RAWAL been committed nor his call details have been analysed to establish the same.
6. In addition, the petitioner claimed that the Principal of the school, where the victim studied was also liable to be prosecuted for not taking the necessary steps after becoming aware of the alleged assaults on the child victim.
7. During the course of arguments, Ms Luthra, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner had fairly conceded that the allegations against the Principal of the school are not sustainable as in fact the said Principal had reported the incident to Tallital Police station, Nainital and a zero FIR was registered with the said police station.
8. Mr Mehra, leaned standing counsel appearing for the State submitted that the matron in question had not been arrayed as a witness as she had been arrayed as an accused. He states that subsequently, she had been dropped as accused in the said FIR and now there is now no impediment to include her as a witness for the prosecution.
9. Insofar as the CDRs and enquiries with the neighbours are concerned, Mr Mehra states that since the CDRs were collected at the relevant time it may now not be possible to retrieve the same. He further submits that after the passage of time, inquiries with the neighbours may also be of little assistance. Nonetheless, he states that the IO will look into this aspect and if necessary include them by filing a supplementary report.
10. In view of the above, no further orders are required to be passed except to direct the learned trial court to also consider the supplementary charge-sheet as and when the same is filed by the investigating agency.
Signature Not Verified digitally signed by:DUSHYANT RAWAL11. Ms Luthra, learned senior counsel had also submitted that certain observations made by the trial court are not justified. She submitted that the observation that the petitioner had not pursued the matter actively is incorrect. Further, the trial court had also assumed that the petitioner was pursuing the matter on account of his matrimonial differences with Ms „P‟.
12. This court is refraining from making any observations in this regard except noting the said contentions.
13. The petition is disposed of with the aforesaid terms.
VIBHU BAKHRU, J DECEMBER 21, 2020 MK Signature Not Verified digitally signed by:DUSHYANT RAWAL