R K Budhiraja vs State (Nct Of Delhi) & Ors.
2014 Latest Caselaw 2783 Del

*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+      CRL.M.C. No.1019/2013

                                  Date of decision: 29th May, 2014

R K BUDHIRAJA                                             ..... Petitioner
                              Through:   Mr. Vikram Singh, Adv.

                     versus
STATE (NCT OF DELHI) & ORS.                             ..... Respondents
                  Through:               Mr. M.P. Singh, APP for the
                                         State

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VED PRAKASH VAISH

VED PRAKASH VAISH, J. (ORAL)

1. This is a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'Cr.P.C') seeking quashing of FIR No. 154/2009 under Sections 182/219/220/342/365/120B/34 IPC registered at Police Station Keshav Puram.

2. Shorn off unnecessary details, the facts of the case are that on 28.09.2006, Head Constable Rameshwar along with Constable Amar Singh and Constable Jai Singh were on patrolling when they were reached near Prem Bari Pul within the jurisdiction of police station Keshav Puram one person was nabbed, whose identity was later on revealed as Sunil Kumar Dahiya (respondent no.3). During his search, one country made pistol and one live cartridge was recovered from the right pocket of his trouser. Head Constable Rameshwar made a call at police station Keshav Puram. Subsequently SI Bal Prakash and later on SHO police station Keshav Puram reached at the spot, who themselves made enquiry from Sunil Kumar Dahiya and FIR No.

624/2006 under Sections 25/54/59, Arms Act was registered at police station Keshav Puram.

3. The father of respondent no.3, Sunil Kumar Dahiya, made a complaint that his son Sunil Kumar Dahiya had been falsely implicated by police officers including the petitioner, who was posted as Station House Officer at police station Keshav Puram, at the time of registration of FIR No. 624/2006. The complainant alleged that the petitioner had a personal grudge against him and the petitioner had falsely implicated respondent no.3 in case FIR No. 624/2006.

4. Respondent no.3 moved an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. seeking direction for registration of FIR for the offences under Sections 182/219/220/342/365/468/471 IPC read with Section 120 B IPC. Vide order dated 8.6.2009, learned ACMM-1, Rohini, Delhi directed SHO police station Keshav Puram to register FIR against the accused persons under appropriate sections of law.

5. The petitioner filed criminal revision petition no. 31/2010 which was dismissed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-01, North West, Rohini, Delhi, vide order dated 9.11.2010.

6. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has filed the present petition. Notice of this petition was issued to respondent no.3. The affidavit of Mr. Gaurav Sharma, dated 21.4.2014 was filed stating that respondent no.3 refused to accept notice. However, fresh notice was again issued to respondent No.3 on 24.4.2014 and 15.5.2014. According to the office report, respondent No.3 was not found at the given address. The petitioner has filed the affidavit of Mr. Gaurav Sharma, clerk of counsel for the petitioner, dated 28.5.2014 stating that mother of respondent No.3 refused to accept the notice. Learned APP has also filed a report signed by Inspector Keshav Mathur, South

Western Range, New Delhi to the effect that Suraj Bhan, father of respondent No.3 refused to accept the notice.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner was posted as SHO, police station Keshav Puram at the relevant time. Respondent no.3 was apprehended by HC Remeshwar, Constable Amar Singh and Constable Jai Saingh on 28.9.2006, while they were on patrolling duty, during search of respondent no.3 one country made pistol and one live cartridge was recovered. SI Bal Prakash and the petitioner also reached at spot and made enquiry from respondent no.3. A case bearing FIR No. 624/2006 under Sections 25/54/59, Arms Act was registered at police station Keshav Puram. Counsel for the petitioner also submitted that in the said case a closure report was filed and the same was accepted by learned Metropolitan Magistrate vide order dated 30.11.2009.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also pointed out that father of respondent no.3 is a head constable in Delhi Police. Respondent no.3 and his father made a complaint dated 6.10.2006, pursuant thereto an enquiry was conducted by Assistant Commissioner of Police (ACP), Sultan Puri. The Enquiry Officer submitted a report on 27.10.2006 and concluded that there is no such documentary evidence which may suggest regarding false implication of Sunil Kumar Dahiya, son of Suraj Bhan (respondent no.3 herein) in case FIR No. 624/2006 at police station Keshav Puram, Delhi.

9. Thereafter on the complaint of respondent no.3, vigilance enquiry was conducted by ACP (vigilance). ACP (Vigilance) submitted a report dated 6.12.2006 and exonerated the petitioner. The ACP (Vigilance) observed that the statement of police and public witnesses as well as the secret enquiry made in the Police Colony, Model Town II and the relevant record of mobile phones procured and

scrutinised it seems that the complainant Sunil Kumar Dahiya was lifted from Police Colony, Model Town II, by the special staff of ACP/Ashok Vihar. They had recovered the desi katta along with cartridge from him. The recovery effected from the police colony, Model Town but police had registered the case showing different time and place only. The allegation against SHO/ Keshav Puram could not be substantiated. Learned counsel for the petitioner also urged that DCP, Vigilance also conducted an enquiry. The DCP Vigilance submitted a vigilance enquiry report whereby the petitioner was exonerated.

10. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that a complaint under Section 195 Cr.P.C. was required for the offence under Section 182/120B IPC.

11. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that on 7.11.2013, respondent no.3/complainant Sunil Kumar Dahiya, made a statement before the learned ACMM, North West Rohini, in his statement, he has stated that he do not want to pursue his complaint and he is satisfied with the investigation carried out by the police in the present case. Statement of Mr. Sunil Kumar Dahiya was recorded on 7.11.2013 and the complaint case filed by respondent no.3 was dismissed as withdrawn. Certified copy of statement of Sunil Kumar Dahiya dated 7.11.2013 passed by learned ACMM, NW, Rohini Delhi has been placed on record.

12. The respondent no.3 had made a complaint to the department. The matter was enquired by ACP, Sultan Puri which submitted a enquiry report dated 27.10.2006 and wherein the petitioner was exonerated. Again ACP, Vigilance conducted enquiry and submitted a report dated 6.12.2006 who observed that the allegation that SHO police station Keshav Puram (petitioner) could not be substantiated.

Again an enquiry was conducted by DCP enquired, who also exonerated the petitioner. In any case, respondent no.3/complainant has made a statement before the trial Court that he do not want to pursue his complaint and he is satisfied with the investigation carried out by the police.

13. Considering the facts and the fact that respondent no.3/complainant has made a statement before the trial Court that he is satisfied with the investigation and he does not want to pursue his complaint, no useful purpose will be served by continuing with the FIR in question. Thus, the FIR No.154/2009 under Sections 182/219/ 220/342/365/120B/34 IPC registered at Police Station Keshav Puram is hereby quashed.

14. Accordingly, the petition stands disposed of.

(VED PRAKASH VAISH) JUDGE May 29, 2014 gm