Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: missing documents in Harkirat Singh Sodhi vs State Of Nct Of Delhi & Ors on 23 May, 2025Matching Fragments
11. Aggrieved by the dismissal of the Application under Section 156(3), the Complainant, Amita Gandoak, preferred a Criminal Revision Petition No. 13/2016, whereby before the learned Additional Session Judge, in the Impugned Order dated 21.07.2017 observed that a document going missing is a valuable document and the accountability of the same can be fixed on the concerned official only through police investigation. It was thus, directed that the FIR be registered on the Complaint made by Respondent No.2, Amita Gandoak.
18. The Ld. Additional Session Judge has erroneously observed that investigations can only be done by the Police with the aid of scientific and forensic investigation, inasmuch as it is not understandable as to what kind of scientific and or forensic investigation is required for the missing document.
19. Furthermore, once the Respondent No.2, Amita Gandoak has stated that she has seen the original Revocation Deed dated 05.06.2004, what was her need to apply for the Certified Copy. It has not been considered that the Complainant has been filing various Complaints to various Police Authorities. Grave injustice would be caused to the Petitioner if the impugned Order dated 21.01.2017, is not set aside.