Delhi High Court
Raj Kumar Aggarwal & Ors. vs State Nct Of Delhi on 14 January, 2019
SHAKUN ANAND
28.01.2019 11:06
$~14
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Decided on: 14th January, 2019
+ CRL.M.C. 4410/2016
RAJ KUMAR AGGARWAL & ORS. ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr. Feroze Ahmad, Advocate
versus
STATE NCT OF DELHI ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Kewal Singh Ahuja, APP for
State
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
ORDER (ORAL)
1. Allegations have been made against the petitioners about their
complicity in offences punishable under Sections 186, 353, 332, 342,
34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) in first information report (FIR)
no.376/15 registered in police station Mianwali Nagar at the instance
of Constable Anil Kumar who was posted during the said period at
the said police station and statedly had gone to the house of the
petitioners accompanying ASI Dilbagh Singh. The petitioners have
approached this court invoking the power and jurisdiction of this
court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
(Cr.P C) to seek quashing of the said FIR and the proceedings arising
therefrom primarily on the submissions that allegations against them
are false, baseless and concocted.
2. The petition has been resisted by the respondent / State which
craves reference to the facts gathered during investigation into the
said FIR, the submissions being that the issues arising on the
contentions of the petitioners be left for adjudication by the criminal
court after proper inquiry and trial.
3. During the course of hearing, it was brought out that the
investigation into the FIR in question was earlier concluded and a
report (charge-sheet) under Section 173 Cr. PC was submitted on
31.10.2015 in the court of the jurisdictional Magistrate seeking trial
of the petitioners for the aforementioned offences. Meanwhile, the
petitioners had approached the Vigilance Branch of Delhi Police with
the contention that a false case had been registered by the police
officials with a malafide motive. It is brought to the notice of the
court that the Vigilance Branch made an inquiry and submitted a
report on 27.04.2016 under the signatures of Inspector (Vigilance)
before the superior authorities in the police department. It appears
that some adverse observations vis-à-vis the role and acts of
commission or omission attributed to police officials were made in
the wake of which the police decided to exercise its inherent
jurisdiction under Section 173(8) Cr. PC to embark upon further
investigation. The submission to this effect was made before the
Metropolitan Magistrate on 30.07.2015 and the said court allowing
the said prayer had permitted the original charge-sheet as initially
presented alongwith the document submitted therewith to be returned
to the investigation agency to facilitate further investigation.
4. While the further investigation was underway, the present
petition was filed with the aforementioned contentions and the prayer
for quashing of the criminal case arising out of the FIR. The status
reports have been filed from time to time by the investigating agency.
The status report dated 16.04.2018 submitted by the Assistant
Commissioner of Police of Crime Branch, which had later taken over
the further investigation, reveals that the further investigation has
already been concluded and a fresh charge-sheet submitted on
16.04.2018 reiterating the request for prosecution of the petitioners
for the aforementioned offences.
5. Against the above backdrop, this court deems it improper to
undertake an inquiry into the disputed questions of facts. Even
otherwise, it would not be correct for this court to express any opinion
only on the basis of consideration of the FIR to conclude as to
whether the allegations against the petitioners are unfounded or
motivated. There is no good reason why the normal procedure in law
should not be allowed its due course. The questions of fact should
rather be first addressed by the court of first instance. (Rajiv Thapar
and Ors. Vs. Madan Lal Kapoor, (2013) 3 SCC 330).
6. The petitioners will be entitled to raise all the contentions set
out in the petition before the concerned criminal court and pursue
remedies available in law in the event of an adverse order being
passed against them.
7. With these observations, the petition is dismissed.
R.K.GAUBA, J.
JANUARY 14, 2019
yg
