Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

"A. Issue an Order for further investigation directing the prosecution agency to entrust the further investigation to a competent superior officer in FIR no. 210/2021 PS. Dwarka, Delhi, registered under Section 506/509 IPC for a fair trial to the Victim;
OR In the alternative direct the Ld. Trial Court to issue an Order for further investigation directing the prosecution agency to entrust the further investigation to a competent superior officer in FIR no. 210/2021 PS. Dwarka, Delhi, registered under Section 506/509 IPC for a fair trial to the Victim; B. Setting aside the Order dated 08.12.2022 passed by the Ld.Trial Court in Criminal Case no. 1328/2022; C. Set aside the consequential proceedings inter-alia including Order dated 23.03.2022 passed by the Ld. Trial Court to secure the ends of justice and pass appropriate directions for further proceedings;"

5. Vide order dated 23.03.2022, the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, South-West, Dwarka Courts had framed charge under Sections 506/509 of IPC against the accused.

6. The case of petitioner is that she was never informed about the filing of chargesheet nor was she called upon by the police for recording her statements or for any other purpose during the course of investigation as well as at the time of framing of charge, and the I.O. concerned had defeated the rights of victim herein in order to shield the accused by carrying out selective and biased investigation and filing an incomplete and perfunctory chargesheet against the accused, while completely ignoring the mandate of Cr.P.C. and the procedure for investigation. It is her case that it was only somewhere in first week of May, 2022, that the petitioner had received a notice/summons from the learned Trial Court to appear before it and it was only thereafter that she had learnt that chargesheet had already been filed in the present case and the charges had been framed in absence of the petitioner herein. It is stated that despite specific allegations of committing offence under Section 354 and 354D of IPC levelled by „P‟ in her statement recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C., the said sections were not invoked in the chargesheet by the police, and accordingly, charges could not also be framed by the learned Trial Court for these offences, and only Sections 506/509 of IPC were invoked on the basis of complaint submitted by the petitioner herein.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the chargesheet filed in this case was not a proper charge sheet and for the reasons best known to the investigating officer, even the statement of petitioner/complainant was not recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. before the learned Magistrate, which is against the mandate of Section 164(5A) of Cr.P.C. It is also submitted that the chargesheet did not contain any statement of witnesses including the complainant herein under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. It is also pointed out that even no site plan of the place of incident has been prepared and filed along with the chargesheet which would eventually lead to failure of prosecution in proving the place of occurrence of crime and it will be fatal for the case of petitioner/victim herein. It is argued that it is shocking that only the statement of complainant‟s younger sister was recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C., however, the sections invoked in the chargesheet were on the basis of complaint of the petitioner only and her statement under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. was never recorded in this case. It is submitted by the learned counsel for petitioner that an application was moved on behalf of the petitioner herein before the learned Trial Court seeking addition of charges i.e. charge under Section 354/354D of IPC against the accused on the basis of statement of petitioner‟s younger sister recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C., however, the Trial Court had held that the prosecution had only relied upon the complaint given by the petitioner herein regarding incident which had taken place on 25.05.2021 and the prosecution had not considered the allegations levelled by petitioner‟s younger sister qua a past incident which had been compromised among the families, and thus, charges only under Section 509/506 of IPC could be framed. It is submitted that the petitioner had also moved an application before the learned Trial Court for ordering further investigation in the present case since the investigation conducted by the I.O. was improper and incomplete, but the learned Trial Court had dismissed the application on the ground that in view of judgment of Hon‟ble Apex Court in case of Vinubhai Haribhai Malaviya v. State of Gujarat (2019) 17 SCC 1, the Trial Court could not have ordered further investigation after charges had been framed. In this regard, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though the Trial Court cannot order for the investigation, the powers of constitutional Courts are wide in addressing the rights of the victim and for ordering further investigation in case where the investigation conducted by the I.O. is inherently incomplete and where the chargesheet lacks even basic the fundamental requirements of law. It is further stated that after the present FIR was registered on the basis of complaint lodged by petitioner, the wife of the accused had also falsely implicated the family of the petitioner herein in a frivolous case i.e. FIR bearing no. 210/2021, registered at Police Station Sector 23, Dwarka, Delhi, under Sections 354/354B/509/323/34 of IPC and in the said case, the I.O. had conducted proper investigation including recording of statements of witnesses under Section 161 and 164 of Cr.P.C. as well as preparation of site plan, and all these documents were filed along with the chargesheet before the Court. Therefore, in these circumstances, it is prayed on behalf of petitioner that this Court orders the investigating agency to conduct further investigation in this case, considering the aforesaid lapses on part of the I.O.

8. Learned ASC for the State, at the outset, fairly submits that it appears from the records of the case that the investigation in this case was not conducted properly by the I.O. concerned. It is submitted that if this Court deems it fit, it may direct the police to conduct further investigation on points such as recording of statement of petitioner herein under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. who was the original complainant in the present FIR since the offence made out from the allegations made by her falls under Section 509 of IPC, on point of preparation of site plan in the present case, and on the issue as to whether Section 354 and 354D of IPC are made out or not and whether are to be invoked or not in the present FIR.