Delhi High Court
Daya Ram vs State & Anr. on 23 August, 2018
$~41
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Decided on: 23rd August, 2018
+ CRL.M.C. 4234/2018 and Crl. M.A. 30471/2018
DAYA RAM ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Vipul Pankaj Sanghi and Ms.
Ananya Kar Sanghi, Advocates
versus
STATE & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Ms. Meenakshi Dahiya, APP for
the State with SI Rajeshwar
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
ORDER (ORAL)
1. The second respondent had lodged a criminal complaint (CC
no.9107/17) in the court of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (CMM),
District Shahdara, Kakardooma on 26.10.2017 invoking the
jurisdiction of the said court under Section 200 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr. P.C.) to seek criminal action for
offences punishable under Sections 325, 452, 457, 354, 506, 504, 393,
34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), naming inter alia, one Rahul
Kalra as the prime accused, he having been allegedly associated with
eight persons unknown to the complainant, also mentioning the name
of the petitioner herein as the second prospective accused. The
complaint was accompanied by an application under Section 156 (3)
of the Cr. P.C. with a prayer for direction to the Station House Officer
(SHO) of police station GTB Enclave for investigation. The CMM by
order dated 16.03.2018 found it to be a case involving cognizable
offences that required investigation by the police. He, thus, directed
the SHO, PS Shahdara to register the first information report (FIR).
The said order was challenged by the petitioner in the court of
Sessions invoking its revisional jurisdiction (Crl. Rev. no.72/18), the
said petition having been dismissed by order dated 13.08.2018.
2. The orders of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate and the
revisional court are sought to be assailed by the petition at hand
invoking the inherent power of this court under Section 482 Cr. P.C.
3. To say the least, the petition is misconceived. There is no
adverse order passed against the petitioner by any court till date. All
that the court of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate has done, as has
been upheld by the court of Sessions in revision, is issuing direction to
the police to investigate into the complaint of the second respondent.
The allegations in the said criminal complaint are primarily directed
against the person named Rahul Kalra and his associates, they not only
having forcibly entered into her house armed with iron rods and
hockey sticks but also having assaulted her, causing mischief by
damaging her property, using abusive language, extending threats and
causing injuries. The role attributed to the petitioner concerns the time
when he statedly had come to the spot, based upon information having
been received by the police control room telephonically. The
complaint undoubtedly attributes certain misconduct to the petitioner,
wherein he had not only used abusive language but also slapped the
son of the complainant and upon protest being lodged, he having
extended threats to arrest his family members.
4. Given the sequences of events narrated in the complaint, the
allegations of the complainant will have to be investigated into in as
much as they make out cognizable offences. Consequently, the
direction for probe there-into by the Magistrate is within the four
corners of law.
5. If during the course of investigation any act attributable to the
petitioner is brought to light, the investigating agency will be obliged
to bear in mind that he was a public servant, present at the scene,
attending to the duty which he had been called upon to discharge in
the wake of the call received by the police control room. Necessarily,
the investigating agency will also have to probe whether the petitioner
had committed any acts of commission or omission as have been
alleged thereby exceeded the duty which he was expected to perform
in the given fact situation and, if so, whether he is entitled to the
protection of law, either under Section 197 Cr. P.C. or under Section
140 of Delhi Police Act, 1978.
6. There is no occasion at this stage for the abovesaid protective
shields to be invoked to put a stop to the investigative process for the
simple reason no court has yet taken cognizance of any offence
resulting in the petitioner being summoned or being prosecuted.
7. For the foregoing reasons, the petition and the application filed
therewith are dismissed.
R.K.GAUBA, J.
AUGUST 23, 2018/yg
