Delhi High Court
Deepika Sharma vs State (Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi) & Ors. on 12 May, 2017
$24
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Decided on : 12th May, 2017
+ W.P.(CRL) 3325/2016 and Crl. M.A. 18049/2016
DEEPIKA SHARMA ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Anurag Jain and Mr. M.M.
Khan, Advocates
versus
STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI) &
ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Sanjay Lao, ASC with Mr.
Siddarth Sindhu and SI Ram Kishan
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
ORDER (ORAL)
1. The present petition was filed primarily to seek transfer of the
investigation of case FIR no. 382/2016 registered on 23.10.2016 in
police station Geeta Colony under Sections 302, 34 IPC and Sections
25 and 27 of the Arms Act concerning the homicidal death of Vinod
Kumar Sharma, the petitioner being his wife.
2. The FIR and the initial reports of investigation indicated that
there was no eye witness to the occurrence. The petitioner gave some
inputs on the basis of CCTV footage indicating presence of the
persons she suspects to be involved.
3. By earlier order dated 14.12.2016, the investigation of the FIR
was transferred from the local police of Crime Branch of Delhi Police.
The Investigating officer deputed by the crime branch has since
submitted two reports. The reports have been perused.
4. It appears that during the investigation by the local police four
persons were arrested, they being Akash Chauhan, Mohd. Kamil,
Mohd. Kamar and Mohd. Nazim. During the investigation by Crime
Branch, four more persons have been arrested, they being Dilshad,
Farookh Mazhar, Bilal Tansir and Babu Waseem, the last arrest
having been effected on 18.04.2017. Pursuant to the earlier directions,
two of the suspects named by the petitioners, they being Kush and
Sumit were subjected to polygraph test. The report of such polygraph
test, however, so far has not resulted in any input as could lead to
some cogent material or evidence being discovered showing their
complicity.
5. The petitioner's insistence in that the above-said persons ought
to have been arrested and subjected to custodial interrogation in as
much as there is clear evidence of financial dealings between them
and the deceased person in addition to other evidence. The
Investigating officer, however, submits through the additional
standing counsel that the antecedents of the deceased as also some
members of his family are also to be kept in view and, in that light,
mere financial dealings cannot be sufficient to take the case further
against the persons the petitioner holds suspect.
6. The Investigating agency has already filed two reports under
Section 173 Cr. PC in the court of the Magistrate against the eight
persons who have been arrested. Thus, the proceedings against them
on the basis of charge-sheets submitted are already underway. The
Police is undertaking further investigation primarily in light of the
allegations made by the petitioner.
7. In this fact situation, it would be proper that the task of
monitoring the further investigation and giving appropriate guidance
thereto is entrusted to the court of the Metropolitan Magistrate in
terms of Sakiri Vasu Vs. State of U.P. and Ors., (2008) 2 SCC 409.
Ordered accordingly. The petitioner is at liberty to assist the
investigating agency, either directly or through the court of the
Metropolitan Magistrate, in the matter.
8. With these observations, the petition and the pending
application are disposed of.
R.K.GAUBA, J
MAY 12, 2017
yg
