Delhi District Court
Vivek Chaudhary vs Insp.Badrish Dutt & Ors. on 30 May, 2011
CC No.137/1: U/s 156 (3) Cr.P.C DOD: 30.05.2011 IN THE COURT OF VINOD YADAV: CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE: DELHI CC No.137/1 Vivek Chaudhary V/s Insp.Badrish Dutt & Ors. U/s 156 (3) Cr.P.C 30.05.2011 Present: Complainant in person alognwith counsel Shri Sufian Siddiqui, Advocate. O R D E R:
This order shall dispose off an application U/s 156 (3) Cr.P.C, filed on behalf of complainant Shri Vivek Chaudhary. The arguments on this application were heard at length on 26.05.2011 and the matter was kept for orders today.
By way of this application, the complainant has sought registration of FIR against 12 accused persons mentioned in the memo of parties, out of which 10 persons are the officers/officials of Special Cell, Delhi Police and two are private persons. The facts alleged in the application are that complainant is the near relative of accused No.2, SI Kiran Pal Rana. SI Kiran Pal Rana is also the relative of one Shri Sahneder Pal @ S.P Singh, accused No.12. The said Shri Sahender Pal @ S.P Singh was not returning Rs.1,80,000/, which he had borrowed from the complainant. On or around 09.07.2007, SI Kiran Pal Rana, Sahender Pal and one Neeraj hatched a plan to kidnap the complainant and pursuant to the said conspiracy, on 09.07.2007, Vivek Chaudhary V/s Insp.Badrish Dutt Etc.(Appn.U/s 156(3) Cr.PC Dismissed) Page 1 of 5 CC No.137/1: U/s 156 (3) Cr.P.C DOD: 30.05.2011 Sahender Pal called the complainant at Partapur, Meerut for returning of the said money. Believing the aforesaid invitation, the complainant went to Pratapur, Meerut by hiring a car bearing Regn. No.: HR99ACHQ7726, which was driven by driver Shri Kuldeep Grover and they reached there at about 5.25 PM, where the accused police officials of Special Cell kidnapped him alongwith the aforesaid driver and involved him in false case FIR No. 55/2007, U/s 489 B & C/120 B IPC, PS Special Cell and falsely shown recovery of about Rs.4,00,000/ Fake Indian Currency Notes (FICN) from him and his driver.
In the complaint, the complainant has made reference to the Call Detail Records of the phone numbers, used by the police party of Special Cell and has alleged that the tower location of the said mobile phones was not at the place from where the alleged recovery from the complainant and his driver has been shown in the matter.
As such, the complainant has sought registration of FIR against the accused persons for offences punishable U/s 191 to 196/201/307/365/397/120 B/34 IPC r/w Section 27 of Arms Act.
The complainant was arrested in the matter on 09.07.2007, whereafter he filed bail application before the trial court, which was dismissed and thereafter in due course he filed bail application before the Vivek Chaudhary V/s Insp.Badrish Dutt Etc.(Appn.U/s 156(3) Cr.PC Dismissed) Page 2 of 5 CC No.137/1: U/s 156 (3) Cr.P.C DOD: 30.05.2011 Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, being Bail Application No.441/2008, wherein the status report was filed by ACP, Special Cell, interlaia stating therein that the complaint filed by complainant was enquired into and no substance therein was found.
Thereafter, the complainant appears to have filed a complaint dated 29.01.2008 to the Lieutenant Governor of Delhi and DCP (Vigilance), which were thoroughly enquired by DCP (Special Cell) and a report was filed before the Hon'ble High Court, interalia stating therein that the complainant had concocted a story in connivance with his relatives, who are in Delhi Police, with the intention to pressurise the Special Cell team and to get bailed out. It was also stated therein that the said complaint was filed by complainant after expiry of more than six months of the incident, which again showed the concoction on the part of complainant. It was further stated in the report of DCP that the complainant at the relevant time was lying posted in Uttarakhand Police and his activities were under surveillance of Uttarakhand and UP Police, who had obtained the CDRs of his mobile phone.
It appears that on 09.03.2008, further report was filed by ACP (Special Cell) before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, interalia stating therein that during interrogation of the complainant in the above mentioned case, he had disclosed that he alongwith one Shri S.P Singh had visited Bhagalpur, Bihar to obtain counterfeit Indian Currency Notes from one Dawood and his associates. These facts were duly confirmed/established by the affidavit of Manager of Hotel Gallord, Bhagalpur, Bihar.
Vivek Chaudhary V/s Insp.Badrish Dutt Etc.(Appn.U/s 156(3) Cr.PC Dismissed) Page 3 of 5
CC No.137/1: U/s 156 (3) Cr.P.C DOD: 30.05.2011 From various reports filed by Special Cell, this is apparent that the complaints of complainant were thoroughly investigated at the level of DCP (Special Cell) and no substance therein was found.
Even otherwise, the matter against the complainant relating to the same incident for which he wants an FIR to be registered by this court is under trial and the allegations of this complaint are necessarily his defence in the said case. Getting the FIR registered at this stage can prejudice the trial of the said case and would amount to interference in the trial of the aforesaid case. Even otherwise, the allegations of the complainant have already been dealt with at a fairly high level and no substance therein has been found.
In this view of the matter, I do not find any substance in the application. Same stands dismissed.
The dismissal of application U/s 156 (3) Cr.P.C does not mean that the complainant should not be given a fair chance to prove his allegations against the accused persons. However, proceeding further in the matter on the application U/s 200 Cr.P.C of the complainant may have the effect of prejudicing the case of either prosecution or accused because the trial in case FIR No.55/2007 is in progress in full swing, where the accused persons of this complaint are being examined and the accused cannot be examined on oath till he offers himself to be a defence witness, in writing, after recording Vivek Chaudhary V/s Insp.Badrish Dutt Etc.(Appn.U/s 156(3) Cr.PC Dismissed) Page 4 of 5 CC No.137/1: U/s 156 (3) Cr.P.C DOD: 30.05.2011 of the prosecution evidence. The interest of justice would be met if the present complaint case is adjourned sine die with the liberty to the complainant to get the same revived after disposal of the aforesaid case against him. File be consigned to Record Room after completion of necessary formalities.
Announced in the open court (Vinod Yadav)
on 30.05.2011 Chief Metropolitan Magistrate:
Delhi
Vivek Chaudhary V/s Insp.Badrish Dutt Etc.(Appn.U/s 156(3) Cr.PC Dismissed) Page 5 of 5