Irfan Ali @ Imran vs The Commissioner Of Police
2010 Latest Caselaw 3792 Del

21.
*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+      W.P.(CRL) 195/2007

                                      Date of decision: 13th August, 2010

       IRFAN ALI @ IMRAN                ..... Petitioner
                      Through Mr. M. Sufian Siddiqui & Mr.
                      Rakesh Bhugra, Advocate.

                          versus

       THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE            ..... Respondent
                    Through Mr. Roshan Kumar, Advocate for
                    Ms. Meera Bhatia, Additional Standing
                    Counsel for the State along with IO
                    Sukhvinder, P.S. Defence Colony.

       CORAM:
       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA

                                   ORDER

1. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition with the following prayers:-

"a) Issue a writ of mandamus directing, the respondents to adhere to the procedure of law, and not take any coercive steps proceedings otherwise than in accordance with law and right to freedom as enshrined in Constitution of India preserved to the Petitioner.

b) Issue a Writ of mandamus directing CBI or any other investigating agency to investigate the genuineness of all the cases pending and FIRs registered against the petitioner, vide FIR No. 479/06 and 506/06 of P.S. New Friends Colony.

c) Quash the FIRs registered and cases pending against the petitioner if it is found to be false.

d)     Take appropriate action against the police officials who are

W.P. (CRL) No. 195/2007                                               Page 1

involved in implicating the petitioner in false cases.

e) To direct the police not to harass and extort money from the petitioner by issuing threats of implicating him in false criminal cases.

f) To direct the trial court to expedite the trial of the cases pending against the petitioner.

g) To issue the directions to the respondents not to harass the family members of the petitioner during the pendency of the present writ petition.

h) To issue directions to respondents to give proper protection to the petitioner, at the time of attending court proceedings and thereafter the petitioner be left securely at his destination within the jurisdiction of Delhi.

i) Pass any further relief which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case."

2. Prayer clause (a) states the obvious as the respondent Delhi Police is required to adhere to and follow the procedure prescribed in law and can take coercive steps if permitted and allowed as per law.

3. With regard to prayer clause (b) which relates to FIR Nos. 479/2006 and 506/2006, Police Station, New Friends Colony charge sheet has already been filed. These cases are primarily under Sections 379 and 411 of the Indian Penal Code, though some other Sections have also been invoked in FIR No. 506/2006, Police Station New Friends Colony. It is stated that the petitioner was found to be driving a stolen car without a number plate. On investigation it was noticed that the engine number and chassis number of the car were subject matter of FIR No. 113/2005 registered under Section 379 IPC Police Station Sarita Vihar. FIR No. 479/2006 was accordingly registered and the petitioner was arrested. He is now on bail. During interrogation, another car was

W.P. (CRL) No. 195/2007 Page 2 taken into possession as per the petitioner from outside his residence as it was suspected that the said car was a stolen car. As per the police, on investigation it was found that the engine number, chassis number and registration number of the said car were tampered with. Accordingly, FIR No. 506/2006 has been registered. Petitioner was arrested and now is on bail in the said case. As noticed above, charge sheets have been filed in the two cases. In these circumstances, I am not inclined to examine on merits the contention of the petitioner that investigation in these two cases should be referred to CBI. It may be noticed that since 2006 no further case has been registered against the petitioner.

4. Prayer clauses (c) to (f) are somewhat interconnected. They mainly pertain to pending cases against the petitioner. Delhi Police along with their counter affidavit filed on 22nd August, 2009 has filed a list of 50 in which the name of the petitioner has figured. The details of the cases and the outcome or whether the cases are still pending is indicated in a chart attached to this affidavit. The chart reveals that most of the cases were registered in the year 1991 and then in the year 1993. Some cases were also registered in the year 1994. Several cases are duplicate cases; in the sense that on alleged recovery of stolen vehicle or on the alleged disclosure of the accused/petitioner, a separate or a new FIR was registered. Most of these cases registered in 1991 to 1994 have already been decided and adjudicated. In several cases because of no recovery, the petitioner was discharged.

5. The chart reveals that after 1994, two cases interconnected with regard to one stolen car were registered in the year 2000. In one case the petitioner was arrested but he has been discharged as the stolen car was not recovered at the instance of the accused. In the comments it is stated by the Delhi Police that it is a case of one of poor disclosure or faulty investigation. As per the allegation, the petitioner was found to be driving a stolen car.

W.P. (CRL) No. 195/2007 Page 3

6. A case was registered in the year 2004. It is alleged that the petitioner was found to be again driving a car but could not produce papers and duplicate keys were found. The accused was discharged as the car was not found to be a stolen car. One case was registered in the year 2005 and the said case is pending trial. In the year 2006 as stated above, two substantive FIRs have been registered and charge sheets have been filed. The chart also shows that in 2006 some other FIRs were registered but the cars could not be recovered and the cases were treated as untraced or the petitioner was discharged. The Delhi Police has admitted in their affidavit that these cases were of poor investigation or faulty disclosure. Thus, trial courts have been conscious and wherever there was no evidence or lack of evidence, the petitioner has been discharged. Further, no FIR has been registered against the petitioner since 2006.

7. Prayer clauses (g) and (h) are again meaningless as the writ petition is being disposed of by this order and the petitioner has after filing of writ petition in 2007 (except for one allegation) has not alleged harassment by the police. It is needless to say that in case there is any harassment or violation of law or the respondents act contrary to the provisions of law, the petitioner is always entitled to approach the court and ask of appropriate orders and directions.

With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition is disposed of.

SANJIV KHANNA, J.

       AUGUST 13, 2010
       VKR




W.P. (CRL) No. 195/2007                                               Page 4