Rakesh Kumar vs State Of Delhi
2010 Latest Caselaw 1362 Del

*     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                          W.P.(Crl.) 1674/2009

%                          Date of Decision: 11th March, 2010

#     RAKESH KUMAR                                  .....Petitioner
!                Through:              Mr. M.A. Rehman, Adv.


                           versus


$     STATE OF DELHI                 ..... Respondent
^                 Through: Mr. Sanjeev Bhandari, ASC
                           with SI Suraj Prakash, P.S.
                           Aman Vihar.

*     CORAM:
      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. JAIN


      1.     Whether the Reporters of local papers
             may be allowed to see the judgment?                   No

      2.     To be referred to the Reporter or not?                No

      3.     Whether the judgment should be
             reported in the Digest?                               No


: V.K. JAIN, J. (Oral)

1. This is a petition under Article 226/227 of the

Constitution seeking the following reliefs:-

(i) Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or other

suitable writ/writs order and directions against the

respondent No.2 and 3 to register a case against the

accused persons mentioned in Annexure P-2, U/s

395/452 and 328 IPC and investigate the case of the

petitioner and arrest the accused persons and punish

them under the law.

(ii) Issue appropriate writ/writs orders and directs

against the respondent No.1 and 2 to transfer the case of

the petitioner to crime branch, Delhi for fair investigation.

(iii) Issue appropriate writ/writs orders and directions

against the respondent No.2 to change the I.O.

(iv) Issue an appropriate writ/writs order and directions

against the respondent No.1 to register a case U/s 201

IPC against the respondent No.3 and 4 (SHO of Aman

Vihar and Chowki Incharge) for saving the accused

persons from the legal punishment.

(v) Issue appropriate writ/writs directions and orders

against the respondent No.2 to provide protection to the

petitioner and his witnesses.

2. The case of the petitioner is that he had gone to

Paharganj, Delhi on 27 th October 2009 and handed over the

key of his house to one Bhagwan Dass, who was requested to

take care of the house. It has been further alleged that in the

night of 30th November 2009, accused Sandeep and Deepu

came to house of the petitioner and met Bhagwan Dass. They

gave some tobacco to him, on chewing which, Bhagwan Dass

became unconscious. Thereafter, Sandeep, Deepu, Sonu,

Bunty and Shekhar looted the household articles, jewellery,

etc. from the house of the petitioner.

3. A perusal of the status report filed by the State would

show that FIR No. 345/2009 under Section 380 of IPC has

already been registered and investigation has already been

taken up. Statements of witnesses, including that of Bhagwan

Dass, have also been recorded. It has also been stated in the

status report that Sandeep and Deepu were interrogated at

length but, nothing incriminating came out against them. As

regards Sonu, Bunty and Shekhar, it has been stated in the

status report that Bunty and Shekhar were interrogated but,

nothing incriminating was found during their interrogation.

The third person Sonu could not be found at his house and

efforts are being made to trace him and then interrogate him.

4. The police cannot be directed to arrest anyone without

there being sufficient evidence against him and without there

being any necessity of arresting him. No one can be arrested

merely because the complainant suspects him to be involved

in the theft of his articles. In fact, arrest is not necessary even

for charge sheeting an accused. Arrest being a serious matter,

which takes away effect of the liberty of a person, it needs to

be made only where it is found necessary for the purpose of

investigation of the case. As regards Sonu, police can

interrogate him only after he becomes available to the police.

Of course, serious efforts need to be made by the Investigating

Officer, to locate and then interrogate him.

5. The investigation cannot be transferred to Crime Branch,

merely because the complainant so desires. Unless it is shown

that there has been some misconduct or negligence on the part

of the Area Police, transfer of investigation will not be justified

and may result in demoralising the local police.

6. Taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances

of the case, including the investigation carried out so far, there

is no good ground for transferring the investigation of the case

to the Crime Branch. It is, however, directed that efforts will

be made to locate Sonu and interrogate him at the earliest.

Further investigation will be carried out under the supervision

of the concerned Assistant Commissioner of Police and on

concluding investigation, the report will be produced before the

concerned DCP, for approval, before it is submitted to the

Court.

W.P.(Crl.) 1674/2009 stands disposed of with these

directions.

(V.K.JAIN) JUDGE MARCH 11, 2010 Ag