Dalip Singh vs State Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi & Ors
2016 Latest Caselaw 4956 Del

*       IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
    +    CRL.M.C. 3095/2013 & Crl.M.A. No.11573/2013

                                   Date of Decision: July 29th, 2016

         DALIP SINGH                                      ..... Petitioner

                        Through    Mr.Pawan Sharma, Adv. with
                                   Ms.Anupriya Yadav, Adv.
                        versus

         STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS ...... Respondents
                        Through    Mr.Amit Chadha, APP for the State.


         CORAM:
         HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.TEJI

         P.S.TEJI, J.

1. The present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR No.100/2011 under Section 7/13 Prevention of Corruption Act read with Section 384/201/120B IPC registered at PS: Jahangir Puri, Delhi.

2. The facts of the case in a nutshell are that one Ms.Rukhsar worked in the house of Sh.Naresh Gupta as a maid servant from February 2009 to July, 2009. During this period, she used to stay in his house. In the month of October, 2009, Sh.Naresh Gupta came to know that Ms.Rukhsar was missing and a case under Section 363 IPC had been lodged on 06.10.2009 at PS: Jahangir Puri by her mother in which another male servant of his family Niranjan's role was suspected. SI

Sh.Bhagwan was the IO of the case but he could not trace the prosecutrix.

3. On 02.02.2010, investigation of the case was transferred to the petitoiner/HC Dalip Singh by the SHO in contravention of Standing Order No.303/2009 of Delhi Police. On 03.07.2010, the prosecutrix was traced by HC Dalip Singh and was medically examined when she told the doctor that she lived at Muradabad with Anil Gupta as husband and wife and alleged drugging by Naresh Gupta and rape and threat by Niranjan and Santosh and handing her over to Anil Gupta at Muradabad. Her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. was also recorded where she alleged rape having been committed on her person by Niranjan, Santosh, Naresh Gupta and Anil Gupta.

4. On 04.07.2010, her statement was recorded by MM under Section 164 Cr.P.C. In her statement, she alleged that she was sexually assaulted by Naresh Gupta in the company of Niranjan and Santosh and then she was handed over to Anil Gupta of Muradabad. She pointed out that Anil Gupta did not commit any wrong to her.

5. On 22.07.2010, the prosecutrix again made a complaint to the SHO that it was Anil Gupta who had sexually assaulted her and not Naresh Gupta. A petition seeking quashing of said FIR bearing No.540/2009 registered under Sections 363/366/376(g)/34 IPC PS Jahangir Puri has already been dismissed by a coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 23.07.2014.

6. On 08.02.2011, Sh.Naresh Gupta filed a complaint with CP, Delhi for his false implication in the said rape case which culminated into registration of the present FIR quashing of which is sought in the instant petition. During the course of enquiry by Vigilance Branch, he alleged that on 16.07.2010 at 3.30 AM, the SHO along with 8 policemen turned up at his residence in order to arrest him in the said rape case. He called his relative Sh.Ratan Lal who talked to the SHO Inspector S.B.Yadav and IO HC Dalip Chauhan who demanded Rs.10 lakhs for Sh.Naresh Gupta's release. After that, Sh.Naresh Gupta was let off. On the same day, Sh.Ratan Lal paid Rs.20,000/- and Rs.2,50,000/- to the petitoner as advance against the settled amount of Rs.8 lakhs. Five tyres of a santro car of some officer were also purchased by him on the instruction of the petitioner. Two days later, he was again called at the Police Station Jahangir Puri where in the presence of the parents of the victim, he was asked to pay Rs. 3 lakhs to be paid to the mother of the victim to retract her from her previous statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. A sum of Rs.3 lakhs was paid to the petitoner in the presence of SHO Inspector S.B.Yadav and the parents of the girl, but the money was kept by the petitioner to be paid to her after her statement being recorded before the court, which was decliend by the Court.

7. Later on the demand by HC Dalip Singh Chauhan for wheat, gram and rice, Sh.Ratan Lal who runs a busienss of grains in Naya Bazar sent the grains worth Rs.10/12 thousands

to his residence at Model Town in a Vikram Tempo on 27.07.2010. Rs.50,000/- were paid to the petitioner/IO thrice when notices under Section 160 Cr.P.C. were served on Naresh Gupta. In total, more than Rs.7 lakhs were extorted by the petitioner from Sh.Ratan Lal on the pretext to save Sh.Naresh Gupta from the rape case.

8. The bail application was dismissed by this Court and he then surrendered before the concerned court and was arrested in the case.

9. The charge sheet in the matter was filed on 07.03.2013.

10. The learned counsel for the petitioner/HC Dilip Singh Chauhan has taken the grounds in the petition are that the FIR in question is an act of vengeance and a counterblast to the FIR registered against the complainant of the present case; that the complainant is an accused of gang rape and is highly connected person and through senior police officials, had stalled his arrest and on being unable to withdraw the allegations of gang rape, he manipulated a false story of demand and payment of bribe against the petitioner; from 16.07.2010 to 28.02.2011, the complainant approached the court and the Commissioner of Police and nowhere alleged demand of bribe; the present FIR was lodged on 28.03.2011 and no steps have been taken to unearth the conspiracy between Naresh Gupta, Rattan Lal, Sh.Muktesh Chander Joint CP, Sh.Jai Bhagwan ACP, Sh.R.K.Jha ACP, Vigilance, prosecutrix and her mother as well as the IO of the case who

moved in furtherance of conspiracy to implicate the petitioner and S.B.Yadav who laid foundation of rape charge against Naresh Gupta; that till the bail orders were obtained by Naresh Gupta and charge sheet was filed against him, he never questioned the theory of naming him as an accused by the prosecutrix at the instance of Anil Gupta. Subsequently, he took a u-turn and claimed that his name was mentioned by the prosecutrix as an accused at the instance of the petitioner. Thus, he tried to approbate and reprobate facts which he ought not to be permitted to do.

11. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

12. The record reveals that the complainant Naresh Gupta in his statement had stated that the petitioner had demanded money for solving the case which was registered against the complainant as the case was a big one. The complainant authorized his brother-in-law Rattan Lal to handle the payments to be made to the petitioner. Mr.Rattan Lal in his statement had stated that on different occasions he paid different amounts to the accused HC Dilip Singh Chauhan. He also stated that on asking of petitioner/accused Dilip Singh Chauhan he got replaced five tyres of a car. He specifically stated that on 16.07.2010 he had paid Rs.20,000/- to accused HC Dilip Singh Chauhan and subsequently he also paid a sum of Rs.2.5 lakhs. He further paid Rs.3 lakhs to accused HC Dilip Singh Chauhan for giving the same to the mother of the

prosecutrix. Subsequently also, he made various payments to accused HC Dilip Singh Chauhan and also made payments with regard to articles/food grains purchased for him.

13. As per the statement of the complainant and his brother in law Rattan Lal, all the demands of money and articles were made by accused HC Dilip Singh Chauhan.

14. In view of the statements of the compalinant and his brother-in-law Mr.Rattan Lal, there are specific allegations and material against accused HC Dilip Singh Chauhan that he demanded illegal gratification and accepted the same from Mr.Rattan Lal allegedly for showing favour to the complainant in a rape case which was assigned to the petitioner to investigate.

15. The contention of the petitioner that non-quashing of FIR lodged against the complainant of the present case is a ground for quashing the instant FIR, is not sustainable. Non- quashing of FIR against the complainant of the present case cannot be said to be proving of allegations against him and it cannot be a ground for quashing the FIR in question.

16. In view of above discussion, the petitioner has failed to make out any case for quashing of the FIR in question.

17. The petition is accordingly dismissed.

(P.S.TEJI) JUDGE JULY 29, 2016 dm/dd