Delhi High Court
Rajesh Kapoor vs State & Ors. on 6 February, 2020
$~30
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment Reserved On: 22.10.2019
Judgment Pronounced On: 06.02.2020
+ W.P.(CRL) 2827/2019
RAJESH KAPOOR ..... Petitioner
Through Mr. Satish Aggarwal & Mr.
Gagan Vaswani Advocates.
versus
STATE & ORS. ..... Respondent
Through Mr. R.S.Kundu, ASC for R-1.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BRIJESH SETHI
JUDGMENT
BRIJESH SETHI, J
1. This is a Writ Petition filed by the petitioner for issuance of Writ
of Mandamus for issuing directions to the Commissioner of Police to
look into the matter and to take appropriate action against Sh.
Dharmender, Sub-inspector/Assistant Sub-Inspector and other members
of his team. It is also prayed that direction be issued for restoration of
the mobile phone no. 8076631177 to the petitioner and direct officer to
furnish CCTV footage of the relevant time.
W.P.(CRL) 2827/2019 Page no.1 of 5
2. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is a
petty shop-keeper. On 28.09.2019, a police official had come to his
shop and arrested his employee Subhash on the plea that he is in
possession of stolen television. According to the petitioner, there was
one accused with him who had stated that after committing the theft of
television, he had sold the same to his employee Subhash. However,
instead of taking Subhash with them, the petitioner was ordered to sit in
a private vehicle and proceeded towards Police Station Vasant Kunj.
The employee Subhash was also directed to reach there where
Dharmender, Sub-inspector/Assistant Sub-Inspector asked the petitioner
to arrange Rs. 50,000/- otherwise he would be arrested in a case of theft
and for receiving stolen television. The petitioner had shown his
inability to pay the said amount.
3. After reaching police Station Vasant Kunj(North), the petitioner
was made to sit there and his mobile phone was snatched by
Dharmender, Sub-inspector/Assistant Sub-Inspector and he was directed
to arrange money. After some time, petitioner sought the permission to
go to washroom and after using the washroom, the petitioner ran away
from the premises of the Police Station Vasant Kunj(North). It is
W.P.(CRL) 2827/2019 Page no.2 of 5
submitted by Ld. Counsel for the petitioner that there is an apprehension
that petitioner will be impleaded in a false case.
4. Ld. Additional Standing Counsel has filed reply and submitted
that on the complaint of one Mani Shankar Mishra, case FIR No.
000462/2019 was registered in Police Station Vasant Kunj(North), New
Delhi. A theft had taken place in the godown of the complainant at Gali
No. 6, Mahipalpur. Certain LED TVs, bags of mobile phones, Laptop
and Printers were stolen. During the course of investigation, one
accused Sonu was arrested on 25.09.2019. At the instance of accused
Sonu, co-accused Satender was also arrested. One another co-accused
Sonu Rajpur was also arrested on 26.09.2019. He had disclosed that he
had sold one stolen LED TV to one Rajesh, i.e., petitioner in the present
Writ Petition. Later on a raid was conducted at the shop of the petitioner
and accused Sonu Rajput pointed out that he had sold the LED TV to the
petitioner who was sitting in the shop. On being examined, the
petitioner had submitted that he had purchased the stolen LED TV for
Rs. 5,000/-. He has, however, kept the LED TV at some other place.
One LED TV was recovered, however, it did not have Logo of SKY and
Barcode of the complainant company. It was suspected that present
W.P.(CRL) 2827/2019 Page no.3 of 5
petitioner had intentionally removed the Logo and Barcode so that the
case property cannot be identified. In these circumstances, petitioner
was asked to accompany the raiding team to PS Vasabnt Kunj. On
reaching PS Vasant Kunj, the complainant had identified the recovered
LED TV as the one which was stolen from his godown. On this, the
petitioner got nervous and escaped from the Police Station.
5. Affidavit has also been filed by the police official Dharmender
Meena. He has denied the allegations, levelled by the petitioner.
6. I have considered the rival submissions. The petitioner has been
suspected of having received the stolen LED TV. There are allegations
that in order to hide the identity of said LED TV, he had intentionally
removed the Logo and Barcode of the complainant company. He was
granted interim protection by Ld. Additional Session Judge. However,
he had not co-operated in the investigation. The petitioner is yet to be
interrogated. In case the petitioner has any grievance against the police
officials, he has the remedy to approach Commissioner of Police who
can take appropriate action against the police officials after ascertaining
the veracity of the complaint. In case any offence is committed by
police officials, the petitioner has a remedy to file a complaint before
W.P.(CRL) 2827/2019 Page no.4 of 5
higher authorities of police or before Ld. MM. However, in the present
case, there are allegations against the petitioner under Section 411
Cr.P.C. The investigation is at initial stage and the police cannot be
stopped from investigating the offence in accordance with law. No
grounds are made out for issuance of any directions for any action
against the police officials at this stage. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner
in the end has, however, prayed that petitioner be allowed the presence
of lawyer during investigation. Though there is no prayer in the writ
petition to the said effect, however, in the interest of justice, let the
interrogation of the petitioner, if he so desires, be held within the sight of
his advocate or any other person duly authorized by him. However, it is
made clear that the advocate or the person authorized by the respondent
may watch the proceedings from a distance or from behind a glass
partition but he will not be within the hearing distance and it will not be
open to the respondent to have consultations with him in the course of
the interrogation.
7. The petition stands disposed of in view of the above directions.
BRIJESH SETHI, J
FEBRUARY 6, 2020
AK
W.P.(CRL) 2827/2019 Page no.5 of 5
