Delhi High Court
Satyapal @ Prince vs State Of Nct Of Delhi & Anr. on 1 August, 2018
$~7
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Decided on:- 1st August, 2018
+ CRL. M.C. 1081/2015
SATYAPAL @ PRINCE ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. A.C. David & Smt. Sudha
Saxena, Advs.
versus
STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Ashish Dutta, APP for the
State with SI Hawa Singh, Crime
Branch.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
ORDER (ORAL)
1. The petitioner was summoned as accused on the basis of
supplementary report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) submitted by the police in the wake of
investigation into first information report (FIR No. 3/2014) of police
station Crime Branch involving offences punishable under Sections
384/386/506/507/467/468/471/474/120B of Indian Penal Code, 1860
(IPC), Section 66 of Information Technology Act and Section 14 of
Foreigners Act, 1946.
2. By the petition at hand, he invokes the jurisdiction of this Court
under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to seek quashing of the proceedings in the
criminal case against him claiming false implication. During the
proceedings arising out of criminal case in the wake of summons issued,
the question of charge was considered by the Chief Metropolitan
Magistrate by order dated 03.12.2014, she opining that the petitioner
along with others who had been sent up for prosecution, were liable to be
put on trial on charges properly made out. The petitioner also seeks to
assail the said order on charge.
3. The FIR was registered on the complaint of Manish Talreja
submitted on 06.01.2014 to the police raising grievances about he having
received certain threatening messages (SMs) on his mobile phone no.
9811345745, from certain other mobile phones, such messages
demanding money to be paid for his life to be spared, he having been
asked to make deposit the money in a bank account which was specified
as 913020054692894. The investigation brought out involvement of
certain persons they including Vikas Sharma, Prakash Sharma and a
foreign national named Ossazze Solomon Idehan. The investigation
statedly also brought out that the SIM cards which had been used by the
phone instruments for the extortion messages had been procured on the
basis of forged and fabricated documents in the nature of Rent
Agreement, Rent Receipts, PAN cards etc. from the shop of the
petitioner it being named and styled as Krishna Telecommunications. It
is on the basis of material confirming these facts that, by the
supplementary charge-sheet, prosecution of the petitioner was sought on
the allegations that he had aided and abetted the main conspirators in the
crimes he having failed to abide by his responsibility as the distributor on
behalf of the service provider to verify the genuineness of the documents
relating to identity submitted at the time of issuance of the SIM cards.
4. The prosecution relies upon instructions issued on 09.08.2012 by
the Department of Telecommunications in the Ministry of
Communication and Information Technology of the Govt. of India, as
per clause 3(i) whereof the responsibility to verify the identity of the
customer, proof of his address, as submitted with the customer
application form, has been made that of the person at the point of sale,
which, in the present case, would be the petitioner. It has been the
argument of the petitioner that he was merely a retailer who was not
accountable for the impersonation, or forgery of documents, submitted
by the customer, his responsibility being only to pass on the customer's
application form with the documents submitted therewith to the service
provider who would be expected to carry out the verification.
5. In the face of the instructions issued by the Department of
Telecommunication, as has been referred to above, the above explanation
offered by the petitioner has been rejected by the Metropolitan
Magistrate, and rightly so, in the opinion of this court, at the stage of
consideration of charge.
6. In the face of the background facts and evidence which has been
presented, the broad argument that the allegations are concocted and
false cannot be accepted. A grave suspicion as to the complicity of the
petitioner arises justifying the view taken by the court below in putting
him on trial with the other accused.
7. The petition is dismissed.
R.K.GAUBA, J.
AUGUST 01, 2018/nvk
