Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Delhi High Court

Dheeraj Singh Rana vs State (Nct Of Delhi) & Anr. on 9 May, 2013

Author: G. P. Mittal

Bench: G.P.Mittal

*        IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                                        Date of Order: May 09, 2013
+        CRL.M.C. 3348/2012

         DHEERAJ SINGH RANA                                      ...... Petitioner
                      Through:            Mr. Bankim Kulshrestha, Advocate

                             versus

         STATE (NCT OF DELHI) & ANR.              ..... Respondents
                       Through: Ms. Jasbir Kaur, APP for the State.

+        CRL.M.C. 127/2013

         DHEERAJ SINGH RANA                                      ...... Petitioner
                      Through:            Mr. Bankim Kulshrestha, Advocate

                             versus

         STATE (NCT OF DELHI) & ANR.              ..... Respondents
                       Through: Ms. Jasbir Kaur, APP for the State.

         CORAM:
         HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P.MITTAL
                                      ORDER

G. P. MITTAL, J.

Crl.M.A.1960/2013 & 3314/2013 in CRL.M.C. 3348/2012 Crl.M.A.2058/2013 & 3312/2013 in CRL.M.C. 127/2013

1. By virtue of these Applications under Article 134-A of the Constitution of India and Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) the Petitioner seeks issuance of a certificate of fitness to file an Appeal in the Supreme Court against the order dated 04.02.2013 passed by this Court dismissing a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

2. It may be noted that two Applications one under Section 340 Cr.P.C. and another under Section 91 Cr.P.C. were filed by the Petitioner. The sum and substance of the two Applications can be extracted from the order dated 13.08.2012 passed by the learned ASJ hereunder:-

".... It is submitted that in the statement which was made in the correspondence dated 25.07.2010 by the Joint Commissioner of Police to Shri P.K. Jalali, copies of which were sent to Secretary to Lt. Governor, Delhi Additional Secretary (Home), GNCT of Delhi, S.O. to Special Commissioner of Police/Secretary and DCP, Headdquarters, PHQ and other officers, it was stated that three persons wearing masks started firing indiscriminately upon Smt. Phoolan Devi. Furthermore, in the proceedings of the Parliament from 25.07.2001 to 31.07.2001, it is mentioned that according to FIR facts gathered from Senior Police officials, the assailants were wearing masks. It is submitted that as per the challan, accused persons were allegedly identified at the time of incident, which is in strong contradictions to the statements made initially in the Parliament and in the official documents. It is submitted that investigations are concocted and fabricated in order to procure illegal detention from the court of law. Therefore, offence of purjery has been committed for which complaint had to be made under section 340 Cr.P.C.

The said application is supported with another application under Section 91 Cr.P.C. seeking production of the letters written to various agencies and also the statements recorded in the Parliament.

The State has filed a joint reply to the application under section 91 CrPC and under Section 340 CrPC, wherein the documents which have been sought are not within the power and possession of the investigating agency. Moreover, the documents pertaining to Parliament proceedings have already been placed on record by the accused himself. Moreover, it is no where claimed that these documents are required for the cross examination of the prosecution witnesses. None of the prosecution witnesses are the witness to any of these documents. Therefore, there is no ground on which the said documents can be summoned. For the same Crl. MC 3348/2012 Etc Page 2 of 5 reason, the application under Section 340 CrPC is not maintainable....."

3. In the Application under Section 340 Cr.P.C. the Petitioner's prayer was for the prosecution of the investigating officer and of other persons who had filed the challan (the chargesheet) against the Petitioner allegedly on false and fabricated evidence. The learned ASJ ordered for taking up of the application after disposal of the case on the premise that the question whether the Petitioner who had been challaned/prosecuted on false and fabricated evidence shall be tested at the time of final adjudication. The Application under Section 340 Cr.P.C. was therefore held to be premature. The Application under Section 91 of the Cr.P.C. came to be dismissed holding "that all the prosecution witnesses have already been examined and it has not been pointed out as to why these documents are required at this stage and whether these are required to be put to any prosecution witness. Moreover, none of these documents have been authored by any of the prosecution witnesses. These documents at best can be used by the accused in his defence and he is at liberty to seek their production from concerned agency which is not the prosecuting agency and prove them as per law in his defence."

4. The learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the order dated 04.02.2013 raises an important question of law as formulated in Crl.M.A. Nos. 1960/2013, 3314/2013, 2058/2013 and 3312/2013 and thus a certificate of fitness to file a Special Leave Petition may be issued to the Petitioner. In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the Petitioner relies on Chandra Prakash & Or. v. State of U.P. & Anr. AIR 2002 SC 1652; Gangadhar Behera & Ors. v. State of Orissa (2002) 8 SCC 381; Chapter 1, Part E of Record of Evidence in Criminal Cases;

Virender v. The State of NCT of Delhi 2009 (4) JCC 2721; Mustakeem v. The State of U.P., 2002 Crl.LJ 1516; Shailendra Kumar v. State of Bihar & Ors. AIR 2002 SC 270; Madhav Hayawadanrao Hoskot v. State of Maharashtra (1978) 3 SCC 544; Lincoln J. Wills v. Shamsul Haque & Ors. 1974 Crl.LJ 23 (V 80 C 6); Amin & Anr. v. The State AIR 1958 Allahabad 293 (V 45 C 59); Bhanu M. Vakil v. Chandra Oshiram Keswani & Anr. 1991 Crl.LJ 2819; V.K. Sasikala v. State Rep. by Superintendent of Police, 2012 (4) Crimes 146; Rupe Ashok Hurra v. Ashok Hurra & Anr., AIR 2002 SC 1771; Dilip Premnarayan Tiwari & Anr. v. State of Maharashtra, 2010 (1) LRC 22 (SC); Babubhai v. State of Gujarat & Ors. 2010 (4) RCR (Criminal) 311; Brady v. Mary Land 1963 (American Supreme Court); A. Venkatasubbiah Naidu v. S. Chellappan & Ors. (2000) 7 SCC 695; Ajay Kumar v. State & Anr. 1986 Crl.LJ. 932; Shalini Shyam Shetty v. Rajendra Shankar Patil, 2010 (3) KLT SN 86 (C.No.90) SC; S. Pratap Singh v. The State of Punjab (1964) 4 SCR 733; Abdul Rehman Antulay & Ors. v. R.S. Nayak & Anr. (1992) 1 SCC 225; State Bank of India & Anr. v. S.B.I. Employees Union and Ant. AIR 1987 SC 2203; Sarjubhaiya Mathurbhaiya Kahar v. Deputy Commissioner of Police, Vadodara & Anr. 1984 Crl.L.J. 1474; Sushil Kumar Gupta v. Joy Shanker Bhattacharyya, 1970 SCC (Cr.) 210; and Nar Singh & Anr. v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1954 SC 457 (Vol. 41, CN 109).

5. I have gone through the Applications as well as the case laws cited at the Bar. To my mind, the order dated 04.02.2013 does not raise any important question of law so as to issue a certificate as prayed for by the Petitioner. The authorities cited are not relevant on the issue raised in the Applications.

6. The Petitioner is therefore not entitled to the grant of certificate of fitness.

The Applications are accordingly dismissed.

(G.P. MITTAL) JUDGE MAY 09, 2013 vk Crl. MC 3348/2012 Etc Page 5 of 5