Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

4. Thereafter, on 30.05.2001, an application under Section 340 Cr.P.C had again been filed by the petitioner, in which he had alleged that the FIR had been registered on the basis of false and fabricated statement of the complainant by forging his signature and the investigating officer had wrongly stated before the Magistrate on 15.01.2000 about recording of statement of complainant in Police Post Burari. It was alleged that all three respondents i.e. (i) IO Satbir,

SUBMISSIONS BY BOTH THE PARTIES

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that after suffering physical abuse and assault by multiple individuals, the petitioner had given a statement to the police, leading to the registration of a Kalandra, but since FIR was not registered, the petitioner had filed an application before the learned Magistrate for calling the status report, upon which the copy of the FIR was filed by the respondent before the Court. It is further submitted that the FIR subsequently registered did not accurately reflect the petitioner's initial statement, and that the respondent no. 1 and his officials had manipulated the records to alter the statement. It is stated that this discrepancy was brought to the attention of the learned Magistrate, who after due consideration, issued a summoning order on 19.03.2008, which was later erroneously set aside by the learned ASJ. It is argued that the learned Magistrate was justified in passing the summoning order on the basis of evidence reflecting prima-facie commission of the offence based on the record itself. It is also stated that even if the original statement made by the petitioner warranted severe punishment, the trial in FIR No. 73/2000 would rely on the material available on the chargesheet, which was based on a fabricated statement, and the petitioner's true version was neither present on the chargesheet nor before the Court, making it challenging to adjudicate the offences committed by the respondent and his officials in conjunction with or after the conclusion of the FIR No. 73/2000 trial. It is stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that a significant distinction has been laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in various cases between Section 197 of the Cr.P.C. and Section 140 of the Delhi Police Act. It is argued that Section 197 of the Cr.P.C. exclusively applies to offences committed while an individual is „acting or purporting to act in the discharge of their official duties‟ and it does not extend to cover acts committed under „colour of or in excess of the authority‟. Therefore, it is prayed that present petition be allowed and order passed by learned ASJ be set aside.

23. Thereafter, the petitioner had filed an application under Section 340 of Cr.P.C. read with Sections 193/196/197/217/218 of IPC on 30.05.2001, in which following allegations were leveled against the against the accused persons:

i. That the accused persons had registered FIR on the basis of fabricated documents ii. IO Satbir had made false submissions before the learned Magistrate regarding recording the statement of petitioner in the presence of Incharge-Police Post, Burari iii. The IO Satbir and Incharge, Police Post, Burari had given false and fabricated evidence in judicial proceedings including forged and fabricated statement of the petitioner/complainant iv. IO Satbir committed this offence within intent to save accused persons from punishment v. Incharge, Police Post, Burari and SHO, P.S. Timarpur (respondent no. 1 herein) associated and participated in the commission of same offence

24. Thus, a bare perusal of the said application and the aforesaid allegations would reveal that the allegations of preparing false and fabricated statement of petitioner etc. were against other accused persons i.e. the IO of the case and In-charge of Police Post, and not against respondent no. 1 i.e. SHO, P.S. Timarpur. Only a general allegations was made against respondent no. 1 that he had participated with other two accused in commission of the offence. Further, since the petitioner Sh. Sardool Singh had passed away during the pendency of proceedings before the learned Magistrate, his son namely Sewa Singh had tendered pre-summoning evidence before the learned Magistrate in which he had mentioned details of the event dated 05.01.2000.