Ashok Kumar vs Lt. Governor Of Delhi & Anr.
2009 Latest Caselaw 3823 Del

*          IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                 W.P.(Crl.) No. 1622/2007


%                           Judgment delivered on: 17.09.2009

Ashok Kumar                            ...... petitioner.
         Through: Mr.Krishan Kumar for the petitioner.

                versus

Lt.Governor of Delhi & Anr.               ..... Respondent
          Through: Mr. Rajat Katyal proxy counsel for the State.


CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH GAMBHIR

1.   Whether the Reporters of local papers may
     be allowed to see the judgment?

2.   To be referred to Reporter or not?

3.   Whether the judgment should be reported
     in the Digest?

KAILASH GAMBHIR, J. Oral

*

1. By way of the present petition filed under Article 226

the petitioner seeks directions to quash and set aside the

impugned order dated 29.3.2007 and allow his application dated

31.7.2006, whereby the petitioner sought sanction of the Lt.

Governor to seek prosecution of the police officials.

2. Brief facts of the case relevant for deciding the present

petition are that:

The petitioner is one of the legal heirs of deceased Ram

Lal. As per the petitioner, late Shri Ram Lal was a victim of the

conspiracy hatched by the Chairman, the Directors and officials

being in charge of day- to-day affairs of ICICI Bank Ltd., along with

other unknown and known persons. Late Ram Lal, father of the

petitioner was fraudulently induced to purchase a car and in

that process he was deceived by various acts and omissions of the

persons namely Dinesh Singh Pathania and Diler Singh who

represented themselves to be the officials of ICICI Bank Ltd and

consequently he suffered losses to the tune of Rs.30,000/-. The

petitioner's father late Ram Lal, made a complaint dated

20.9.2005 at P.S. Mandawali for appropriate legal action against

all the offenders. Petitioner's father personally met the then

SHO, P.S. Mandawali i.e. Inspector Ram Chander Sangwan and also

Sub Inspector Mangesh Tyagi but in spite of being assured by the

said officials no action was taken by them to register a case.

Petitioner's father late Ram Lal being suspicious of the mala fide

intentions of the officials filed a criminal complaint before the

learned ACMM, Karkardooma Courts, Shahdara, Delhi with a

further prayer to direct the concerned SHO to register and

investigate the case. The learned M.M. directed the concerned

SHO to file action taken report and pursuant to the direction the

Action Taken Report dated 27.3.2006 was submitted before the

said court. In the said report it was revealed that the said two

officials had deliberately failed to register the case as required

under Section 154 Cr.P.C. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred a

detailed petition dated 31.7.2006 before the respondent no.1

seeking grant of sanction to prosecute the offenders. However, no

action was initiated by the respondent and the Commissioner of

Police on the said petition dated 31.7.2006 which led to filling of

another application dated 3.10.2006. Feeling aggrieved with non-

action on the part of the respondent the petitioner moved a

petition before Delhi High Court bearing W.P.(Crl.) No.2894/2006

seeking directions against the respondent and the Commissioner

of Police. The said petition was disposed of with direction to the

Lt. Governor to decide the application of the petitioner within two

weeks from the date of receipt of the said order. In spite of said

directions the respondent failed to comply with the same which

further led to filing of an application dated 24.3.2007 seeking

appropriate directions. This court vide order dated 26.3.2007

issued contempt notice against the respondent. The respondent

passed the impugned order 29.3.2007. Vide order dated 6.7.2009

liberty was granted to petitioner to challenge the impugned order

dated 29.3.2007. Being aggrieved with the said order the

petitioner preferred the present petition.

3. Counsel for the petitioner submits that even as per the

action taken report filed by the police, it would be evident that the

amount of the loan was advanced by one Diler Singh who also

took guarantee for the loan amount. Counsel further submits that

neither the petitioner ever approached the said Diler Singh for the

advancement of the loan amount nor was he aware that any

such agent has been appointed by the bank. Counsel further

submits that the loan amount of Rs.85,000/- was in fact

sanctioned for the purchase of a second hand vehicle and as per

the records of the bank the said loan amount was disbursed in

favour of M/s. Auto World Marketing in September, 2004 but in

spite of the above sanction only an amount of Rs. 64,145/- was

paid to the father of the petitioner. Counsel thus submits that the

father of the petitioner was cheated by the bank and the said

unauthorized agents of the bank. Counsel further submits that the

complaint was filed at Police Station, Mandawali and the then

SHO Ram Chander Sangwan and S.I. Mangesh Tyagi, who because

of their being hand in glove with the said unauthorized agents of

the bank did not take any action. Counsel further submits that

steps were taken by the petitioner in filing an application under

Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., and pursuant thereto directions were given

by the concerned Magistrate for registration of an FIR. Counsel

further submits that the application was filed by the petitioner to

seek prosecution of the police officials but the said request of the

petitioner has been declined by the Lt. Governor for unjustified

reasons.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at

considerable length.

5. Counsel for the State has pointed out that the police

has already filed closure report in the said FIR No.50/2006 and

being dissatisfied with the closure report therewith the petitioner

has also filed a protest petition which is pending disposal before

the concerned court. In the present petition the petitioner has not

challenged the said closure report and rightly so because the

petitioner is awaiting outcome of his protest petition. The

petitioner in the present case has assailed the order dated

29.3.2007 whereby the application of the petitioner seeking

prosecution of the said police officers was rejected by the Lt.

Governor. The petitioner has not advanced any argument so as to

challenge the reasoning given by the Lt. Governor in the said order

rather he has been agitated so far as the action of the police

officials and the said unauthorized agents of the bank were

concerned. Perusal of the order dated 29.3.2007 clearly shows

that Lt. Governor took prima facie view of the matter and based

on that reached to the conclusion that the allegations leveled by

the petitioner appeared to be of a civil nature. It was also found

by the Lt. Governor that the police had taken action to register an

FIR on the direction of the learned M.M. and at that point of time

the investigation was still in progress. It was further found that

the assessment of the police officials did not appear to be

suffering from any deliberate misapplication of law. Based on the

said assessment, the Lt. Governor found that the application of the

petitioner seeking prosecution under Section 197 Cr.P.C. against

the police officials was devoid of any merit.

6. I do not find any illegality or perversity in the said

impugned order passed by the Lt. Governor.

7. There is no merit in the present petition.

8. Dismissed.

September 17, 2009                     KAILASH GAMBHIR,J
mg