Delhi High Court
Dinesh Rai vs State Of Nct Of Delhi & Ors. on 1 August, 2012
Author: V.K.Shali
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ WP(Crl.)841/2012 & Crl.M.A. 7312/2012
Decided on : 1st August, 2012
DINESH RAI ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Vikas Pahwa, Sr. Adv. with Mr. B.
Badrinath, Adv.
versus
STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Sunil Sharma, APP
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. SHALI
V.K. SHALI, J. (ORAL)
1. This is a writ petition filed by the petitioner under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking transfer of
the investigation to Crime Branch, Delhi Police or any
specialized agency, like CBI.
2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the present
petitioner was working as a part-time driver with the
complainant who got an FIR No.31/2012 registered with
PS:Greater Kailash-I, New Delhi against the petitioner for
an offence under Section 380 IPC. It is the case of the
petitioner that he is alleged to have stolen jewellery
articles from the house of the complainant, while as the
fact of the matter is that the son of the complainant had
actually committed the theft of the jewellery articles. It is
stated that this fact was admitted by the son of the
complainant in his presence as well as in the presence of
some of the independent persons. Accordingly, it has
been stated that the present petitioner, being a poor
person, is being framed in the matter.
3. The State has filed the Status Report and disputed the
averment that the petitioner is being framed. On the
contrary, it has been stated that after the registration of
the FIR, the matter was investigated and the petitioner
was interrogated who made a disclosure statement, as a
consequence of which the recovery of jewellery articles
was also effected from a shop situated in South
Extension, New Delhi. It has also been stated in the
Status Report that some of the jewellery articles were
also recovered from House No.R-106, Greater Kailash-I,
New Delhi, where one Mohan Shivaji Patil, a shopkeeper
of Mega Jewellers, N.D.S.E.-II, New Delhi was living.
After completing the investigation, a Chargesheet is also
stated to have been filed in a competent court.
4. I have heard Mr. Vikas Pahwa, the learned Senior
Counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. Sunil Sharma,
the learned APP.
5. Mr. Vikas Pahwa has vehemently contended that the
petitioner is a poor person and was working only as a
part-time driver and he has been wrongly framed by the
complainant and her son in this case. It has been stated
by him that the son of the complainant had himself
admitted that he had stolen the jewellery articles, as he
was in the need of money and the present petitioner is
only being made a scapegoat. In order to arrive at this
independent conclusion, the learned Senior Counsel has
contended that the investigations of the case may be
transferred to the Crime Branch, Delhi Police to arrive at
an impartial finding.
6. This prayer has been opposed by the learned APP on the
ground that the investigations have already culminated
into the filing of a Chargesheet against the present
petitioner and the articles of jewellery have also been
recovered in pursuance to the Disclosure Statement
made by the petitioner. He, therefore, states that this is
only a ploy to distract the attention of the Court.
7. I have carefully considered the rival contentions and
gone through the records.
8. I find myself in agreement with the learned APP that
since the Chargesheet has already been filed
against the present petitioner for an offence under
Sections 380 IPC, there is hardly any scope for arriving
at a conclusion, different than the one which has already
been reflected in the Challan. So far as the version of the
petitioner is concerned, he can establish his defence
before the Trial Court. It is ultimately for the Trial Court
to frame the charges against the petitioner where he can
take whatever defence is available to him in law.
9. I find no merit in the contention of Mr. Pahwa.
Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed.
V.K. SHALI, J.
August 01, 2012
'tp'
