Delhi District Court
Insp. Sunil Sharma vs The State (Nct Of Delhi) on 3 October, 2016
IN THE COURT OF SH. LOKESH KUMAR SHARMA
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE04
& SPECIAL JUDGE (NDPS) SOUTHEAST: SAKET COURTS: NEW DELHI
CR204736.16
Criminal Revision No. 91/2016
ID No. 02406R0281042016
Insp. Sunil Sharma
s/o Late Roop Narain
SHO, PS: Govindpuri, New Delhi ....... Petitioner
Versus
The State (NCT of Delhi) ....... Respondent
FIR No. 509/15 U/s: 420 IPC PS: Govindpuri State v. Unknown Instituted on: 17.08..2016 Argued on : 03.10.2016 Decided on : 03.10.2016 O R D E R Feeling aggrieved from the order dated 18.07.2016 passed by the court of Sh. Arun Kumar Garg, Ld. MM04, SED, New Delhi in case titled "State v. untrace", FIR No. 509/15, PS Govindpuri, under section 420 IPC, vide which the Ld. MM was pleased to issue directions to DCP(SE) to take appropriate departmental action against the petitioner, the then SHO PS Govindpuri for dereliction in discharge of duty on his part and to file an action taken report, the petitioner had challenged the same on the following amongst other grounds: Because the impugned order was against the law and facts of the case and the Ld. MM had also failed to appreciate that the investigation carried out by the IO was in a fair and impartial manner and the Ld. MM had overstepped CR No.91/2016 Ins. Sunil Sharma v. State Page No.1 / 4 his jurisdiction in relation to issuance of direction to DCP to initiate departmental action against the petitioner because the petitioner had forwarded the investigation report of the IO to his senior officer, i.e. ACP, who had also forwarded the same as "untrace" finding the report of the IO as correct and after properly satisfying himself about the investigation conducted by the IO, hence, the impugned order was arbitrary and was based on conjectures and surmises of the Ld. MM passed in a mechanical manner and was liable to be set aside as it was passed against the mandate of our own Hon'ble High Court in W.P.(Crl.) No. 139/2015, titled as "State v. Yogender Singh" and W.P.(Crl.) 3034/2015, titled as "Dy. Commissioner of Police v. Babloo Paswan & Anr.".
3 I have gone through the record of the Ld. Trial Court as well as the police file.
4 There cannot be a denial to the fact that the case was not investigated in a proper manner by the previous IO/SI Rishi Sharma, who deserved the appropriate wrath of the court. However, merely because the petitioner had forwarded the said untrace report being SHO of the police station concerned, it cannot be considered as a malafide act on his behalf. 5 The only lacuna appearing in the investigation till the date of filing of the "untrace report" seems to be noninvestigation in respect of the purchases allegedly made by the accused through internet banking, nor it had been clarified as to in whose name ,the withdrawals from the account of the complainant were got encashed/transferred.
CR No.91/2016 Ins. Sunil Sharma v. State Page No.2 / 4 6 Be that as it may, the said lacuna, even if any, appearing in the investigation, could not have been considered as fatal and malafide either on the part of the IO or on the part of the SHO/petitioner herein, who had merely forwarded the same to his senior authority, because the IO himself had made his best efforts to trace out the accused on basis of the address derived from his cell phone and the IO had also visited the given address of the accused at Kolkata to trace him out and once the accused himself was not found available, no useful purpose was going to be served by getting the investigation delayed by going into the minute details of each transaction without getting a clue about the actual offender, hence, untrace report was filed by the IO because it was not the money but it was the offender who was required to be traced in this case.
7 Further, it is to be noted here that by sending the case as "untraced" does not bring the matter to its logical end, rather the matter always remains liable to be reopened and as and when some clue in that regard is found by the investigation agency, the same is reopend and the culprit/accused is put to trial.
8 In view of the aforesaid reasons, I am of the considered opinion that the observations of the Ld. MM qua dereliction of duty on the part of the SHO/petitioner herein in discharge of his duty in any manner, warranting an inquiry to be conducted into his conduct, was not justified and sustainable in law particularly when in compliance of his directions contained in order dated 11.5.2016, the concerned ACP had assigned the investigation to an officer of CR No.91/2016 Ins. Sunil Sharma v. State Page No.3 / 4 the rank of Inspector, i.e. Insp. Raman Kumar and even the court had also entertained the request of the said IO to grant him more time to get a successful lead in this matter and accordingly, the revision petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside and recalled so far as it pertains to the directions for initiation of departmental action against the petitioner, by the DCP/SE.
9 The Ld. MM is advised to be cautious in future while evaluating the work done by senior and supervisory officer and his subordinates before issuing directions for such harsh punishment against them by making a distinction between "malafide" and "bonafide" lapses on their part. 9 TCR be sent back to the Ld. Trial Court with a copy of this order for perusal and necessary compliance.
10 Revision file be consigned to record room after compliance of all other necessary formalities in this regard.
Announced in the open court on 3rd Ocotber, 2016 ( LOKESH KUMAR SHARMA) ASJ04 & Spl. Judge (NDPS) SouthEast District Saket Courts, New Delhi CR No.91/2016 Ins. Sunil Sharma v. State Page No.4 / 4