Delhi High Court - Orders
Radhey Shyam vs State And Ors on 24 November, 2020
Author: Vibhu Bakhru
Bench: Vibhu Bakhru
$~15
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(CRL) 1942/2020
RADHEY SHYAM ..... Petitioner
Through Mr. Maninder Singh, Adv. for the
petitioner.
Versus
STATE AND ORS ..... Respondents
Through Mr. Avi Singh, ASC for the GNCTD
with Mr. Tanuj Bhadana, Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU
ORDER
% 24.11.2020 [Hearing held through videoconferencing] CRL.M.A. 16222/2020 (Exemption)
1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
W.P.(CRL) 1942/2020 & CRL. M.A. 16221/2020 (for directions)
2. The petitioner has filed the present petition, inter alia, praying as under:
"Issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus & or other appropriate writ/order to the respondents to conduct a fair and impartial enquiry/investigation in the FIR No. 0060/2019, P.S. Prashant Vihar, under section 420/406/468/471/34 IPC and to issue directions to the respondents for the protection of life and liberty of the petitioner and further to issue directions to the Signature Not Verified digitally signed by:DUSHYANT RAWAL SHO/IO/DIU ROHINI to keep the vehicle bearing number HR-26BV-1989, PORSCHE AG cayenne, engine no. 033873, chassis no. WP1ZLB92CLA28027 in their safe custody during the investigation."
3. It is submitted that the FIR was registered at the instance of the petitioner. It is alleged that he had handed over his vehicle (bearing registration no. HR 26BV 1989) to Mr. Hardeep Singh Lamba, who was engaged in the business of dealing cars. He had done so in order for Mr. Lamba to find a suitable buyer and sell the vehicle. Mr. Hardeep Singh Lamba has expired and his sons (Daanvir Karan Singh Lamba and Digvijay Singh Lamba) are now continuing the said business.
4. The petitioner alleges that they have been unable to find a suitable buyer for the vehicle. They have neither paid the petitioner the consideration for the car nor are returning the same. The petitioner also alleges that the said accused have forged papers to show that the petitioner had executed documents for the transfer of the said vehicle but the vehicle has not been transferred as yet.
5. The petitioner is essentially aggrieved by the inaction of the investigation agency to retrieve the vehicle in question. It is stated that initially the police authorities did not file the FIR, however, the same was filed on 06.03.2019, pursuant to an order dated 26.02.2019 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate (MM) under section 156(3) Cr.PC, directing that the FIR be registered.
6. Although the FIR was registered, the investigation agency did not seize the said vehicle. Accordingly, the petitioner approached the learned MM once again and directions were issued by the learned MM, on Signature Not Verified digitally signed by:DUSHYANT RAWAL 29.08.2019, directing the IO to seize the vehicle in question.
7. The said order was challenged before the learned ASJ on the ground that after an order had been passed by the learned MM under Section 156(3) of the Cr. P.C., the Magistrate had become functus officio and did not have power to monitor the investigation and issue directions. The said revision petition (Revision Petition No. 197/2017 ) was allowed by an order dated 25.11.2019 and the order dated 29.08.2019, passed by the learned MM, directing the IO to seize the vehicle in question was set aside.
8. Although, the petitioner appears to be aggrieved by the said order, the same has not been impugned in the present petition.
9. According to the petitioner, the investigating agency has not been conducting proper investigations and the same is evident from the fact that the IO has not seized the vehicle in question.
10. Mr. Avi Singh, learned ASC appearing for the State submits that the vehicle has not been seized as the matter was under investigation and the accused persons had produced documents which prima facie indicated that the petitioner had handed over the documents for transfer of the vehicle. He states that the said documents were referred to FSL to ascertain whether the papers had been signed by the petitioner. He states that the FSL report has since been received and the investigation would be completed shortly and a final report would be filed before the concerned court.
11. In view of the above, the Investigation Officer is directed to complete the investigation and file a final report before the learned MM as expeditiously as possible and in any event, within a period of eight weeks from today.
12. No further orders are required to be passed in this petition.
Signature Not Verified digitally signed by:DUSHYANT RAWAL13. The petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. The pending application is also disposed of.
VIBHU BAKHRU, J NOVEMBER 24, 2020/acm Signature Not Verified digitally signed by:DUSHYANT RAWAL