Delhi High Court
Ajay Gautam vs State & Anr. on 2 May, 2017
$~25
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Decided on: 2nd May, 2017
+ W.P. (CRL.) 3507/2016
AJAY GAUTAM ..... Petitioner
Through: Petitioner in person.
versus
STATE & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Rahul Mehra, Standing
Counsel (Crl.) with Mr. Jamal
Akhtar, Adv.
SI Anil Kumar, PS Dabri.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
O R D E R (ORAL)
1. The present criminal writ petition invoking Article 226 of the
Constitution of India and Section 482 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) was submitted in December, 2016 by the
petitioner, appearing in person, seeking the following reliefs:-
"A. Allow the present writ petition.
B. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of
mandamus issuing necessary directions to the
respondents to stop harassing the petitioner and
follow process of law in respect of any inquiry or
investigation related to the petitioner.
C. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of
mandamus issuing necessary directions to the
respondents not to enter in the house/premises of
petitioner without permission or without follow
process of law.
D. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of
mandamus issuing necessary directions to the
respondents to not to do publication of the notice
for enquiry.
E. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of
mandamus issuing necessary directions to the
respondents to supply copy of the complaints in
advance if any to the petitioner in which they are
seeking views and reply of the petitioner.
F. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of
mandamus issuing necessary directions to the
respondents to give reasonable time to file the
reply after supply the copy of the complaint.
G. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of
mandamus issuing necessary directions to the
respondents to approach/contact/direct for
appearance to the petitioner if necessary only.
H. The Hon'ble Court may issue a writ, order or
direction in the nature of mandamus commanding
the respondents to protect the fundamental rights
insured in Article 21 of the Constitution of India
specially right to privacy of the petitioner during
the police enquiry/investigations.
I. Pass any other or further order which this Hon'ble
Court may deem fit and proper under the facts and
circumstances of the case in the interest of
justice."
2. Notice was issued to the respondents. A counter affidavit of
Inspector Harendra Singh, SHO of Police Station Dabri to which the
matter pertains, has been filed. The petitioner has filed a rejoinder to
the said counter affidavit.
3. On being asked, the petitioner submitted that since he is
conversant with all the facts and has the necessary knowledge of law,
he does not need services of any advocate and would make his
submissions on his own without such assistance.
4. Petitioner has been heard at length. Submissions of the
respondents have also been taken into consideration.
5. The counter affidavit reveals, what is not disclosed by the
petitioner, that one H.S. Rawat has filed a complaint against him on
05.12.2015 making certain allegations of false implication in case of
rape and molestation and threats to kill as also certain attempts in that
regard. This was followed by a formal complaint by the said H.S.
Rawat presented in the court of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate,
Dwarka Courts under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. alleging offences under
Sections 383/499/506 IPC having been committed, the said complaint
having been registered as Complaint Case No.1240/1. In the said
complaint, it appears allegations were made by said H.S. Rawat
against the petitioner to the effect that he had demanded Rs.5 lacs by
way of extortion. It appears from the counter affidavit that the said
matter was received in the Police Station on 27.06.2016 and it is in
that context and background that the police started making inquiries
for status report to be submitted in the court of Metropolitan
Magistrate.
6. It is further revealed by the counter affidavit that on 11.11.2016
and 19.11.2016 the said H.S.Rawat filed fresh complaints against the
petitioner leveling allegations of theft of certain documents as also
certain other acts. The said matter was made over to Sub Inspector
Sanjay Kumar of the Police Station for appropriate inquiry. The
counter affidavit though also reveals that the petitioner has also filed a
complaint case under Section 156(3) and Section 400 Cr.P.C. against
H.S. Rawat in the court of Metropolitan Magistrate at Dwarka, which
case is pending, it having been described as a cross case.
7. Be that as it may, the reasons for the visits to the house of the
petitioner by the local police officials have been explained the same
being for purposes and in the wake of inquiry necessitated by the
complaint made in the court of Metropolitan Magistrate on which a
report was called for by said court.
8. Against the above backdrop, the petition is found to be
misconceived. It does not call for any relief or directions.
9. Petition is dismissed.
R.K.GAUBA, J.
MAY 02, 2017
vk
