Delhi High Court
Mausumi Bhattacharjee vs State on 9 August, 2018
$~3
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Decided on:9th August, 2018
+ CRL.M.C. 4798/2015
MAUSUMI BHATTACHARJEE ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. C. Rajaram & Ms. Shashi
Panwar, Advs.
versus
STATE ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Mukesh Kumar, APP for
the State.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
ORDER (ORAL)
1. The petitioner is facing proceedings in a criminal case arising
out of FIR No. 41/2000 of police station Punjabi Bagh involving
offences punishable under Sections 406/420/120 B of the Indian Penal
Code, 1860 (IPC) registered on the basis of charge-sheet which was
submitted upon conclusion of investigation. The case is at the stage of
consideration of charge. She had moved an application under Section
91 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C) seeking direction
to the investigating agency to bring on record certain documents
which she claimed had been seized from her possession, her
contention, inter alia, being that she had resigned from the Ram
Charitable Trust, Jaipur in whose name certain memorandum of
undertaking (MOU) had been entered upon by the complainant with
one Anand Prakash Khandelwal later on 01.11.1994. The investigating
agency submitted a reply upon consideration of which the
Metropolitan Magistrate made certain further inquiries in the course of
which Mr. Ajit Singh, Assistant Commissioner of Police (ACP)
submitted a report dated 01.12.2014. According to the said report, the
notice under Section 91 Cr.P.C. pursuant to which documents had
been handed over, had been issued by the then investigating officer
Inspector Virender Singh. ACP Ajit Singh thus informed the
Metropolitan Magistrate that it is the said investigating officer who
would have to submit a reply in such regard. The Metropolitan
Magistrate did not hold any further inquiry and, instead, by order
dated 21.09.2015, rejected the prayer of the petitioner on the grounds
that there was no plausible explanation offered as to why the request
to above effect had been moved thirteen years after the documents had
been handed over.
2. Aggrieved by the short-shrifting of her prayer, the present
petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India
read with Section 482 Cr.P.C. for necessary directions.
3. The State, in answer to the petition at hand, has submitted a
reply dated 08.09.2016 under the signatures of the ACP Vikram Singh
Rana. In the said reply, it takes a position that inquiries have been
made in the course of which Inspector Virender Singh, the then
Investigating Officer, has testified that no such documents were
handed over to him by the petitioner and only certain photocopies
were made available and seized vide memo dated 02.05.2001. The
documents thus seized pertain to income-tax return of the petitioner
for the assessment year 1995-96, auditor's report with balance-sheet as
on 31.03.1995 and copy of the bank statement of account no. SB-8457
of Vijay Bank, Bhikhaji Cama Place.
4. The reply to the petition is based on an internal probe by the
investigating agency. The fact remains that in answer to the
application moved by the petitioner, a very vague position was taken
by ACP Ajit Singh, he having informed the Court that it was Inspector
Virender Singh who would be in a position to throw light on the
matter. Instead of calling the then investigating officer, Inspector
Virender Singh, the Metropolitan Magistrate chose to dismiss the
application simply on account of delay which was not correct or
proper.
5. In the foregoing facts and circumstances, it is directed that the
Metropolitan Magistrate shall summon Inspector Virender Singh (now
ACP) and all the relevant records and hold an inquiry to return clear
findings as to what documents were handed over or seized by the
investigating agency pursuant to the notice under Section 91 Cr.P.C.
dated 17.04.2001. If any documents, other than the ones referred to
the above, were also seized, the person in custody will be held
accountable and called upon to produce the same.
6. With these observations and directions, the petition is disposed
of.
R.K.GAUBA, J.
AUGUST 09, 2018/nk
