Delhi High Court
State (Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi) vs Noor Jahan on 22 December, 2015
Author: S. P. Garg
$-7
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
DECIDED ON : 22nd DECEMBER, 2015
+ CRL.M.C. 5089/2015
STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI) ..... Petitioner
Through : Ms.Aashaa Tiwari, APP.
versus
NOOR JAHAN ..... Respondent
Through : None
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG
S.P.Garg, J. (Oral)
1. Present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been preferred
by the State to challenge the legality and correctness of an order dated
02.09.2015 of learned Addl. Sessions Judge directing the investigation to
be conducted by a competent officer not below the rank of Addl.
Commission of Police having experience in such cases.
2. I have heard the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State
and have examined the file. Case FIR No.666/2015 under Sections
372/376/109/34 IPC and Sections 3/4/5 of Immoral Traffic (Prevention)
Act was registered at PS New Usmanpur on the complaint of the victim
'X' (assumed name) against her father, mother, sister and brother-in-law
for forcing her into prostitution. Her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C.
has been recorded. During investigation, Noor Jahan and Sana moved Bail
Application No. 7582 to seek pre-arrest bail. Declining the bail vide order
dated 02.09.2015, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge directed the
investigation to be conducted by a competent officer not below the rank of
Addl. Commissioner of Police.
3. The matter is still under investigation. The matter came up
before the Addl. Sessions Judge due to filing of application for pre-arrest
bail. Apparently, while dealing with anticipatory bail application, the
learned Addl. Sessions Judge had no jurisdiction to order conducting of
investigation by an officer not below the rank of Addl. Commissioner of
Police. The charge-sheet is yet to be filed before the concerned Court. The
prosecutrix / complainant is not aggrieved by the investigation being
conducted in the instant case.
4. In the case of 'Hemant Dhasmana vs. Central Bureau of
Investigation' (2001) 7 SCC 536, under Section 173(8), a direction was
given by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate while ordering further
investigation to get the matter investigated by an officer of DIG rank of
CBI. The Hon'ble Supreme Court did not agree and was of the view that
the Magistrate could not have directed that a particular police officer or
even an officer of a particular rank should conduct such further
investigation. It is not within the province of the Magistrate while
exercising the power under Section 173(8) to specify a particular officer
to conduct such investigation, not even to suggest the rank of the officer
who should conduct such investigation.
5. In the result, the petition is allowed and the impugned order
to the extent that the further investigation shall be conducted by an officer
not below the rank of Addl. Commissioner of Police having experience of
investigation of such cases is set aside.
6. The petition stands disposed of in the above terms.
(S.P.GARG)
JUDGE
DECEMBER 22, 2015 / tr
