Delhi High Court
Manjeet Singh Chugh vs State & Ors on 30 October, 2019
$~49
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 30th October, 2019
+ CRL.REV.P. 633/2014 & Crl.M.A. 15906/2014
MANJEET SINGH CHUGH ..... Petitioner
Through Mr.Rajat Aneja, Adv. with
Ms.Chandrika Gupta, Adv.
Versus
STATE & ORS ..... Respondents
Through Mr.K.K. Ghei, APP for State.
SI Bansi Lal PS K.M. Pur.
Mr.Anupam S. Sharrma, SPP with
Mr.Eric Karan Sharma, Adv. for CBI.
Mr.Siddharth Satija, Adv. for
Mr.Siddharth Aggarwal, Adv. for R-2
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KUMAR KAIT
J U D G M E N T (ORAL)
1. Vide the present petition, the petitioner seeks direction thereby to set
aside/quash the impugned Order dated 06.09.2014 passed by learned
Additional Sessions Judge-03, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi District,
New Delhi in the case bearing CC No. 45/2014 titled "Registrar General,
High Court of Delhi Vs. Inspector Ashok Kumar and others", within the
jurisdiction of P.S. Tilak Marg under Sections 193/195/34 IPC.
2. The present petition has been filed on the ground that the learned
Additional Sessions Judge while passing the impugned Order dated
06.09.2014 failed to take into consideration that the Respondent Nos. 3 to 5
who had been arrayed as accused persons in context of the complaint lodged
by the Respondent No. 2 (Registrar General, High Court of Delhi) to
prosecute the said Police officials who falsely and deliberately implicated
the petitioner in the case bearing FIR No.392/2002 under Sections 308/34
IPC, thus, the learned Judge committed a grave illegality by directing the
learned CMM to conduct enquiry for examining the role of one of the co-
accused namely Anirudh Chakraborty, who has committed theft in the shop
of the Petitioner on 26.10.2002.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since the said Anirudh
Chakraborty had already been convicted by the learned Metropolitan
Magistrate in the proceedings of FIR No. 387/2002 registered under
Sections 380/411 IPC, therefore, there was no need for the learned ASJ to
direct the CMM to conduct enquiry for examining the role of Anirudh
Chakraborty, whose role was totally distinct and separate from the role of
other accused persons herein, i.e. the Respondent Nos. 3 to 5, who misused
the machinery of law in order to wreak vengeance against the Petitioner by
misusing and abusing their official position during the course of conduct of
their duties as Police officials.
4. To the aforementioned facts and submission, counsel for the
respondents does not dispute and agree with the submission of counsel for
the petitioner that learned Judge had no power to pass such order whereby
directing the CMM to conduct inquiry on the role of Anirudh Chakraborty.
5. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 06.09.2014 is hereby set
aside.
6. Learned Trial Court is directed to hear both the parties on the point of
framing of charge afresh.
7. In view of above, the petition is allowed and disposed of.
8. Pending application stands disposed of.
(SURESH KUMAR KAIT)
JUDGE
OCTOBER 30, 2019
ab
