Delhi District Court
State vs . Rahul Kumar on 3 October, 2017
-1-
IN THE COURT OF SH. GURDEEP SINGH, ADDITIONAL
SESSIONS JUDGE-01 + SPECIAL JUDGE (POCSO ACT)/
SHAHDARA DISTRICT, KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI.
CR No. 143/17
State vs. Rahul Kumar
FIR No. 509/14
PS: Anand Vihar
U/s: 323/341/506/34 IPC
ORDER ON REVISION
03.10.2017
1.This revision petition is filed against the impugned orders dated 31.03.2017, 17.05.2017 and 24.06.2017 passed by Ld. ACMM, Shahdara, KKD, Delhi.
2. The relevant facts are that police of PS- Anand Vihar filed the charge-sheet for offence punishable u/s 323/341/506/34 IPC against accused Rahul Kumar stating therein that call was received regarding quarrel. Statement of injured was recorded who stated that on 16.08.2014 he along with one Praveen had gone to Cross River Mall and was coming out after watching movie and he sent the Praveen to bring the motorcycle and in the meantime he started urinating near the bushes. In the meantime, one boy came while he was urinating and pushed him. He also pushed him (accused) and accused FIR No.: 509/14, PS: Anand Vihar Page 1 of 5 -2- started beating him and thereafter accused Rahul called his 2- 3 friends and Rahul gave fist blow to him. The name of the said person was revealed as Rahul. Thereafter, he called the police. Police came and apprehended Rahul who disclosed the name of other boys as Anuj and Amit. On the basis of said statement, FIR was registered for offence punishable u/s 323/341/34 IPC.
3. After completion of the investigation, the charge-sheet was filed wherein it was stated that during the interrogation no clue was found regarding Anuj and Amit. Accused Rahul had disclosed the incident in his disclosure statement and stated that he is working in the parking of Cross River Mall and one person was urinating where he used to sit and thereafter he called Anuj and Amit who used to come to the Mall and all of them gave beatings to the complainant, but he does not know the whereabouts of Anuj and Amit. After getting the information, supplementary charge-sheet would be filed.
4. Ld. ACMM vide order dated 31.03.17 observed that only casual efforts were made to trace the accused, no efforts were made whether the parking was authorized or not and FIR No.: 509/14, PS: Anand Vihar Page 2 of 5 -3- to whom it was alloted. The contractor of the parking was never interrogated and efforts were made to shield the accused persons. There is no supervision on the part of the SHO and ACP and called for the report from DCP. He did not take the cognizance of the matter and vide order dated 17.05.2017 the status report was filed by DCP who reported that IO tried to contact the contractor but he was not found at the given address. It is also mentioned that the said statement was recorded on 12.05.2017 and therefore the status report is based on the further investigation carried out subsequent to the order of the court and there was no order of further investigation. It is observed that in terms of section 173(8) of Cr.P.C, the same has to be done with the intimation to the court. It was directed that the report filed by DCP regarding in violation of Cr.P.C why no action has been taken against the police officials. Thereafter, report was filed by DCP and he made request for further investigation but reply was not filed of the order dated 31.03.17 and 17.05.2017 and hence vide impugned order it was directed that the report be called from the Commissioner of Police.
5. Initially, the revision petition was filed by Govt. of NCT of Delhi against Rahul, however, it was revealed that no FIR No.: 509/14, PS: Anand Vihar Page 3 of 5 -4- relief was sought against Rahul and it was directed to file amended memo making unknown accused as parties and the same was done.
6. I have heard Ld. Addl.PP for state and also gone through the record. TCR was also called and I have perused the same.
7. The impugned order is assailed on the ground that while filing the charge-sheet, SHO made prayer that supplementary charge-sheet against the accused Amit and Anuj would be filed whenever they were traced and arrested. It is further stated that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case titled State of Punjab Vs. CBI & Ors. Dated 02.09.11 has held that the police is not preclude from carrying out any further investigation in the matter. He further stated that the adverse comments by Ld. ACMM is uncalled for and relied upon Rakesh Chand Vs. State of NCT of Delhi decided on 18.12.2015.
8. I have perused the charge-sheet and observed while filing the charge-sheet it has been prayed that the supplementary charge-sheet shall be filed as and when accused Anuj and Amit shall be apprehended.
FIR No.: 509/14, PS: Anand Vihar Page 4 of 5 -5-9. Ld. ACMM can either accepting the charge-sheet when filed and take cognizance of the matter or if he find in any inadequacy or deficiency, he may direct further investigation. However, in the manner in which the report of DCP is sought is unknown as procedure of law. The further adverse comments on the conduct of IO, SHO and DCP without affording them proper opportunity is contrary to settled proposition of law, the same should not be condemned unheard.
10. Accordingly, I am of the opinion that orders of Ld. ACMM dated 31.03.17, 17.05.2017 and 24.06.2017 are perverse improper and illegal and accordingly the impugned orders are set aside with direction to proceed as per law.
(GURDEEP SINGH) ASJ-01 & Spl. Judge (POCSO) Shahdara/Delhi/ 03.10.2017 FIR No.: 509/14, PS: Anand Vihar Page 5 of 5