Delhi High Court
Mahender Pehlwan vs State Nct Of Delhi on 20 November, 2013
Author: Sunita Gupta
$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
DATE OF DECISION: 20th NOVEMBER, 2013
+ CRL.M.C. 1998/2013
MAHENDER PEHLWAN ..... Petitioner
Through Mr. Vaibhav Sharma, Advocate
versus
STATE NCT OF DELHI ..... Respondent
Through Ms. Fizani Hussain, APP
SI Afaque Ahmad, PS Adarsh Ngr.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SUNITA GUPTA
JUDGMENT
: SUNITA GUPTA, J.
1. This is a petition under Section 482 Cr. P.C. for setting aside of
the order dated 19th December, 2012, passed by the learned Additional
Sessions Judge whereby the security provided to the petitioner was
withdrawn and the order dated 16th January, 2013 whereby the
application seeking review of the order was dismissed.
2. It is alleged in the petition that the petitioner is a prosecution
witness in case FIR No.201/2010 u/s 302/307/34 IPC, PS Adarsh
Nagar, Delhi. The FIR was registered against eight persons, out of
whom three evaded their arrest and were declared proclaimed offender.
All the accused are hardened criminals and are involved in other
heinous offences. The petitioner started getting the threats to his life,
as such, he made an oral request to the learned Additional Sessions
Judge for providing him security. SHO, PS Adarsh Nagar was directed
to provide the security to the petitioner vide order dated 19 th August,
2011. Subsequently, an application was moved on behalf of the
prosecution on 19th December, 2011 for withdrawal of the security
provided to the petitioner on the ground that his evidence has already
been recorded on 19th August, 2011. The application was allowed vide
order dated 19th December, 2012, and the application for review was
also dismissed. It was alleged that the order for withdrawal of the
security provided to the petitioner was non-existent. In that, the
petitioner was accorded security on 19th August, 2011 after he was
examined and cross-examined on the ground that he was apprehending
danger to his life. One of the co-accused Neeraj was arrested while
two are still absconding. Two of the accused have been enlarged on
bail. The petitioner apprehends that they would leave no stone
unturned to do away with him so that he will not be able to depose
against them. Earlier, the petitioner has approached the Court with a
similar petition and Commissioner of Police was directed to take a
decision within one month with representation for providing security.
However, no steps were taken. Reminders have also been sent by the
petitioner but the same has been put off with pretext that his
representation has been forwarded to the concerned police station for
necessary action. Hence this petition.
3. In the status report, filed by the State, it is submitted that the
petitioner is resident of PS Mahindra Park, Delhi and earlier security
was provided to him at PS Mahindra Park, Delhi. The request of the
petitioner for security was sent to PS Mahindra Park, Delhi. SHO/PS
Mahindra Park reported that as per the directions of learned Additional
Sessions Judge, the then DCP/NW directed ACP/Shalimar Bagh to
provide security to the petitioner. Hence, one PSO in day time from PS
Mahindra Park, Delhi was provided to the petitioner. In the meeting of
Security Review Committee/PHQ held on 9th July, 2012 and 10th July,
2012, it was decided that one PSO in day time may be continued and
fresh threat assessment be carried out. It was then assessed that no
fresh threat of any kind related to this case was received by the
petitioner till date. Petitioner has already been examined on 19 th
August, 2011. Petitioner is having a criminal background and is
involved in 12 cases. Most of them are heinous and having personal
rivalries in many cases. The petitioner is also a history sheeter of PS
Mahendra Park, Delhi. As such, there is no justifiable reason that
security should be provided to the petitioner.
4. During the course of argument, it was further submitted that one
of the co-accused Neeraj, who was earlier declared proclaimed
offender was arrested. After the filing of the supplementary charge
sheet, the petitioner has already been examined as a witness qua him.
As such, there is no threat to him at present.
5. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts and circumstances, as
regards the impugned order dated 19th December, 2012 and 16th
January, 2013, the same does not suffer from any infirmity which calls
for any interference. However, in case, the petitioner receives any
threat, then he will be at liberty to approach the concerned
Court/Commissioner of Police for providing security and it will be
open to the concerned authorities to take action in the matter in
accordance with law.
6. Petition is accordingly disposed of.
SUNITA GUPTA
(JUDGE)
NOVEMBER 20, 2013
rs
