Delhi High Court
Gaurav Kumar vs Govt Of Nct Of Delhi & Anr. on 13 February, 2024
Author: Anoop Kumar Mendiratta
Bench: Anoop Kumar Mendiratta
$~61
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision: 13.02.2024
+ W.P.(CRL) 508/2024
GAURAV KUMAR ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr.Hemant Kapoor and Mr.Rachit
Singh, Advocates
versus
GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Ms.Rupali Bandhopadya, ASC,
GNCTD with SI Yogesh Kumar, PS
Kotwali, Delhi.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR MENDIRATTA
% JUDGMENT
ANOOP KUMAR MENDIRATTA, J (ORAL)
Exemption allowed, subject to just exceptions.
Application stands disposed of.
W.P.(CRL.) 508/2024
1. Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with
Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ('Cr.P.C.') has been
preferred on behalf of the petitioner for a direction to respondents No.1 and 2
to transfer the investigation in Complaint Case No.1465/2023 pending before
learned MM (Central), Tis Hazari Courts, New Delhi from Police Station
Kotwali to Special Cell, CBI or any other investigation agency.
2. Issue notice. Learned ASC, GNCTD for the respondents appears on
advance notice and accepts notice.
3. The grievance of the petitioner is that since the FIR was not registered
on complaint filed by petitioner by the concerned Police Station, a complaint
case with application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. was preferred before the
learned MM. However, even pursuant to directions under Section 156(3)
Cr.P.C. matter has not been properly investigated by SI Sandeep Mathur, due
to collusion with the culprits and CCTV footage has not been collected.
4. Learned ASC submits that grievance against SI Sandeep Mathur (IO)
does not remain of much relevance since he has already been transferred and
the matter has been handed over to SI Yogesh Kumar, Police Station
Kotwali, Delhi. It is further pointed out that, report pursuant to investigation
under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. has already been filed before the learned MM,
whereby it has been concluded that the dispute between the parties is of civil
nature and relates to landlord -tenant dispute. Learned ASC, on instructions
of IO, further submits that the petitioner did not join the investigation and
failed to produce the mortgaged deed and complaints have been made
through e-mail, which is denied by the learned counsel for the petitioner.
5. It is well settled that the Magistrate has got the powers to direct
registration of FIR by police, if the facts and circumstances reveal
commission of a cognizable offence. The MM may also direct a proper
investigation or monitor the same if circumstances so warrant. This Court is
of the opinion that, at this stage, it may be premature to intervene in the
proceedings since pursuant to the directions under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.,
the report has already been filed by the investigating agency which shall be
considered by the learned MM in accordance with law. If the petitioner is
still aggrieved against the orders passed by the learned MM, he is at liberty
to file appropriate proceedings, in accordance with law. Since, alternate
remedy under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. has already been availed, it is not a fit
case for exercise for powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Petition is accordingly disposed of. Pending applications, if any, also
stand disposed of. Nothing stated herein shall tantamount to any expression
of opinion on the merits of the case.
A copy this order be forwarded to learned MM for information.
ANOOP KUMAR MENDIRATTA, J.
FEBRUARY 13, 2024/v
