Interim Order 9

Order Details: COPY OF JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS
Pdf Text: CIS No. 760/2024
GOPAL SINGH RANA Vs. Vipin Tod And Others
PS Kotwali
02.07.2025
Present: Sh. V K Sharma, Ld. Counsel for complainant
through VC.
Vide this order, I shall decided whether cognizance
shall be taken under the present complaint or not.
It has been alleged by the complainant that the
proposed accused Vipin Tod in connivance with proposed
accused no.2 and 3 got an FIR No. 000236/2020 registered at PS
Kotwali alleging that his bag containing Rs.10,000/- and some
clothes were snatched by three unknown boys riding on bike
bearing no. DL-7SCE-1665. The alleged bike was registered in
the name of the complainant.
During investigation of the present FIR, the IO
examined the complainant as a suspect and procured his CDR
details. However, neither he nor any of his family members were
found to be present at or near the scene of crime on the day of
incident. It was stated by the complainant to the IO that Gopal
Singh Rana has deliberately given the details of his motorcycle to
falsely implicate him since he wanted to pressurize him to enter
into a settlement in another case pending in Ghaziabad Court.
Accordingly, a cancellation report was filed by the IO stating the
above mentioned facts.
The complainant further alleges that the acts of the
proposed accused persons harmed his reputation in the eyes of
the general public. Hence, he prayed that cognizance be taken
against the proposed accused persons u/s 182, 211 and 500 IPC
read with section 120B of IPC.
-- 1 of 3 --
It is pertinent to mention that section 195 CrPC
creates a bar upon the court to take cognizance for an offence u/s
182 and 211 IPC unless a complaint in writing is made by the
concerned public servant. In the present case, no complaint in
writing has been filed either by the concerned IO or the
concerned court in which the cancellation report was filed.
Accordingly, cognizance for the offence u/s 182 and 211 IPC is
declined.
To attract the liability under section 500 IPC, it is
essential that any imputation by words, visible representations or
publication is made by any person, intending to harm or knowing
or having reason to believe that such imputation will harm, the
reputation of such person.
In the present case, the proposed accused Vipin Tod
stood as complainant in FIR No. 000236/2020 and stated the
theft to have taken place from motorcycle bearing No.
DL-7SCE-1665. This led to the police officials contacting the
complainant and interrogated him as a suspect since it was
registered in his name. However, during interrogation, it came to
light that as per his CDR details, he was not present at the scene
of crime. Subsequently, a cancellation report was filed wherein
the IO highlighted the malafideness of the proposed accused to
falsely implicate the complainant in the present case. The
allegations against the proposed accused no.2, 3 and 4 are not
supported by any evidence. In fact, it was the only proposed
accused no.1 who stood as the complainant in the FIR. Moreover,
the proposed accused no.2 and 4 are public witnesses and as per
the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme court passed in the case of
Anil Kumar Vs. M K Ayappa, (2013) 10 SCC 705, the
cognizance cannot be taken against them without previous
-- 2 of 3 --
sanction of the concerned government.
The actions of the proposed accused Vipin Tod,
prime facie appear to have been made with the intention to
falsely implicate the complainant in a criminal case, thereby
harming his reputation in the eyes of general public.
Hence, the court deems it apposite to take
cognizance u/s 500 IPC against the proposed accused Vipin Tod.
Let notice be issued to the complainant Gopal Singh
Rana for the next date of hearing.
Put up pre-summoning evidence on 08.09.2025 at
1.00 pm.
(SAYESHA CHADHA)
JMFC-08/Central/THC/Delhi
02.07.2025
-- 3 of 3 --