Niaz Ahmad vs State (Delhi Admn.) And Ors.
2004 Latest Caselaw 644 Del

JUDGMENT

Mukul Mudgal, J.

1. This petitioner, a visually challenged person filed this writ petition under Article 226 and 227 seeking prosecution of the respondents under Section 307, 326, 506, 341, 342, 452 and 149 of the IPC said to be committed against the petitioner on 20th May, 1996. He further sought a security guard and the custodial detention of the respondents 7 to 12 until the compensation claimed by the petitioner was paid to him. Respondents 1 to 6 are the State and its police functionaries. There is no appearance on behalf of the petitioner in Court today. Even otherwise a detailed enquiry was conducted by Shri Qamar Ahmed, Dy. Commissioner of Police, Crime & Railways, Delhi to investigate the allegations made by the petitioner and 24 witnesses were examined and upon the conclusion of the enquiry, it was found that the allegations levelled by the petitioner could not be proved. Inter alia it was found that the allegation of an ear injury due to an air gun blast was not correct because prior to the said incident the petitioner was under the treatment for pus/injury in his left ear.

2. In this view of the matter, on the basis of the investigation conducted by a senior officer, no case is made out for granting relief in favor of the petitioner in these proceedings.

3. The petition is accordingly dismissed. It is, however, clear that this dismissal of the writ petition will not come in the way of the petitioner seeking appropriate relief against the respondents in accordance with law and the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 and in particular Section 200 thereof.