Delhi High Court
K.K. Singh vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi & Ors on 29 August, 2012
Author: V.K.Shali
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P. (CRIMINAL) NO.1196 OF 2012
Decided on : 29th August , 2012
K.K. SINGH ...... Petitioner
Through: Mr. M.M. Bhardwaj, Advocate.
Versus
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. ...... Respondents
Through: Mr. Rajesh Mahajan, ASC with Ms. Urvi
Kuthiala, Advocate for the State.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. SHALI
V.K. SHALI, J. (ORAL)
Crl. M.A. No.15617/2012 (for exemption)
Exemption allowed, subject to the deficiency being
rectified.
The application stands disposed of.
W.P. (Crl.) No.1196/2012
1. This is a writ petition filed by the petitioner under Article
226/227 read with Section 482 Cr.P.C. for issuing a writ of
mandamus to the respondents for converting the Special
Report dated 18.6.2003 against the then S.D.M., A.K. Saxena,
into an FIR under relevant Sections of Prevention of Corruption
Act as well as IPC in Police Station Anti-Corruption Branch,
Delhi.
2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the petitioner
is claiming himself to be the General Secretary of Bhartiya
Association for Rural Development and is resident of E-134,
First Floor, Sector-27, Noida-201301. It has been stated that
respondent Nos.1 to 3 are senior officers of the Government of
Delhi and responsible for proper governance and
implementation of vigilance administration in Government of
Delhi. It is alleged that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in M.C.
Mehta vs. Union of India and 'Maili Yamuna' cases has directed
to stop the polluting industries from operating in the State of
Delhi. Accordingly, a direction was given for the purpose of
sealing the industries which were not shifting from the
Territory of Delhi. It is alleged that the petitioner, in
pursuance to his RTI query dated 29.11.2010 has been able to
obtain a copy of the Special Report given by the Additional
CP/AC Branch to Director Vigilance wherein it is stated as
under :-
"Subject: Special Report against SDM Narela,
Mr. A.K. Saxena.
Sir,
A survey of Narela and adjoining areas
was conducted an it has been found that a
large number of factories which had been
closed/sealed on the directions of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court of India has started functioning.
A sample survey showed that the following
factories are running despite orders to the
contrary:
a) Rama Krishan Ispat, Prahladpur.
b) Ganga Mill, Sahabad, Daulatpur
c) Rajeshwari, Sahabad, Daulatpur
d) Golden Plywood, Sahabad, Daulatpur
e) Narpal Singh Saria Mill, Sahabad,
Daulatpur
It has been reliably learnt that the factory
owners pay a bribe amount of `5000/- to
`10,000/- on monthly basis to SDM, Narela, Mr.
A.K. Saxena. Owners of these unauthorized
factories have come together, formed an
informal association and selected a common
man who used to collect money and give it to
SDM, Narela.
Sd/-
(RAJESH MALIK) IPS
ADDL. C.P./AC BRANCH
DATED 18.6.2003
Director (Vigilance) "
3. On the basis of this, it is stated that the matter was
referred to Vigilance Commissioner, namely, one B.V. Selvaraj,
an IAS Officer. It is stated that so far as Selvaraj himself is
concerned, he had landed himself into a CBI dragnet on
account of graft cases. It is alleged that since Selvaraj was
himself involved in a graft case, therefore, the petitioner
expected that he would not act on the basis of the report
submitted by Rajesh Malik, IPS, the then Additional CP. On
the basis of the aforesaid facts, it is stated that a direction be
given to respondent Nos.1 to 3 to register an FIR against A.K.
Saxena, the then SDM, Narela, under Prevention of Corruption
Act as well as IPC on the basis of the said report.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as
well as the learned standing counsel and have also gone
through the record. In my considered opinion, the present
petition is not at all maintainable. The Hon'ble Supreme Court
in number of cases has clearly laid down that the High Court
should be very loath to give a direction for registration of an
FIR. The reason for this is that the registration of an FIR in
respect of a cognizable offence is essentially, in the first
instance, to be done by the SHO under Section 154 Cr.P.C. It
has been observed that in case the SHO does not register an
FIR, the aggrieved person has an appropriate remedy available
to him to approach the DCP or the SP of the area whereupon
his grievance can be redressed under sub-Clause 2 of Section
154 Cr.P.C. It is further observed that in case, the petitioner,
as a party, is still not satisfied then the proper remedy open to
him is to file a complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. whereupon
the Magistrate, who is dealing with such a complaint, can
either conduct the enquiry himself for the purpose of taking
cognizance or can get investigation/enquiry conducted by the
police both in terms of Section 156 (3) or under Section 202
IPC, though these two powers will be exercisable in different
situations.
5. In the light of the aforesaid legal position, the Supreme
Court in number of cases has deprecated the practice of the
High Court issuing directions for straight away registration of
an FIR. Reliance in this regard can be placed on the following
judgments :-
i) Sakiri Vasu vs. State of U.P. & Ors.; AIR 2008 SC 907;
ii) Aleque Padamsee & Ors. Vs. UOI & Ors.; (2007) 6 SCC
171; and
(iii) All-India Institute of Medical Sciences Employees Union
vs. UOI & Ors.; (1996) 11 SCC 582.
6. Keeping in view the aforesaid legal position, I feel that
the present petition is not maintainable and if the petitioner
feels aggrieved, the proper remedy for him is to go to the
learned Magistrate and make a complaint whereupon he will be
required to make out a prima facie case for taking cognizance.
7. In addition to this, another reason for the present
petition being not maintainable is that the petitioner does not
have any locus. He is claiming himself to be the Secretary of
an NGO. The petitioner is neither aggrieved, in any manner,
whatsoever nor does he show as to what interest he have in
the matter which has prompted him to initiate this writ
petition. It seems that the petitioner is a busy body. Report
on the basis of which he wants an FIR to be registered has
been submitted almost nine years back by the Additional CP to
the Director Vigilance. The RTI query which he had made was
also more than 1 ½ years ago. Therefore, there is also an
inordinate delay in seeking the relief for registration of an FIR.
On this ground itself, the bona fides of the petitioner are
suspected. I feel that the petitioner is misusing the processes
of law only for the reasons which are best known to him. I am
not inclined to entertain the petition. Accordingly, the same is
dismissed. In normal circumstances, I would have imposed
heaviest possible cost on the petitioner as this seems ex facie
a frivolous petition; however, I am refraining from passing any
such order.
V.K. SHALI, J.
AUGUST 29, 2012
'AA'
