Interim Order 8

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: 48
CT Cases 1098/2023
ABHISHEK CHOUDHARY Vs. STATE AND OTHERS
21.05.2024
Present: Sh. Nipun Arora, Ld. Counsel for complainant through VC.
Deputed IO SI Vivek Nandan in person with ASI Dharmender.
An application u/s 156(3) alongwith complainant u/s. 200 Cr.PC had
been moved by the complainant against the accused with a prayer that the complaint
be sent to the concerned PS for registration of FIR. In view of application u/s 156(3)
Cr.P.C., Status report was summoned from the concerned PS. The case is fixed for
orders today.
ORDER
In brief, the fact of the complaint is that, complainant Abhishek
Chaudhary is a resident of IX/5259 Gali No. 04, Old Seelampur, Village, near Gol
Baithak, Gandhi Nagar, Delhi. It is the allegation of the complainant that on
03.09.2023, at around 05.00 PM, he was going to the Market when he was stopped
by accused persons namely Sonu (Brother in law/Sala of complainant), alleged
Rajesh, alleged Amit and alleged Balwir @ Ballu, they started beating complainant
by saying that
“Aaj isko maja Sikayenge, bahut complaint karta hai Police mein”. It
is further stated that he was beaten by the accused persons as there is a matrimonial
dispute of complaint with his wife, and his in-laws wanted to take revenge from the
complainant. It is also the allegation of the complainant that accused Sonu has
threatened the complainant with a gun and snatched the keys of the scooty of the
complainant. Complainant called at 112, police official reached there, after which
he was taken to SDN Hospital for his medical examination. Thereafter, he made his
complaint to concerned PS, however no action was taken against accused persons.
Thereafter, he approached this court.
On this, ATR was called from PS Gandhi Nagar. As per the inquiry
conducted by the IO, there is a matrimonial dispute of the complainant. Further
-- 1 of 3 --
stated in the ATR that doctors have observed laceration and abrasion over the
different parts of the body of complainant. It is also stated in the ATR that
complainant has not given any written statement to the PS after the incident.
During arguments, it is stated by ld. Counsel that an application u/s.
91 Cr.PC has also been moved on behalf of the complainant to secure the CCTV
footage of the incident and the complainant has also provided some CCTV footage
of the incident to the IO ASI Dharmender Kumar. It is further argued that IO SI
Vivek Nandan admitted that there was injury marks over the body of the
complainant which is quite evident from the MLC, wherein there was laceration
wound on the scalp of the complainant.
Ld. Counsel has prayed that FIR be registered against accused persons
as they have committed gruesome crime in broad day light.
Vide this order, I will disposed off the application filed by
applicant/complainant u/s 156 (3) Cr. P.C.
In
Lalita Kumari Vs. State of UP 2013 (6) CTC 353, Constitution
Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has held that r
egistration of FIR is
mandatory under section 154 of Cr.P.C, if the information discloses commission of
a cognizable offence and no preliminary enquiry is permissible in such a situation.
Further Ld. Counsel for
complainant has relied upon the judgment of
Hon'ble Supreme Court in case titled as
“ Inspector of Police & Ors Vs.
Battenapatla Venkata Ratnam & Anr” in Crl. Appeal No. 129 of 2013, decided on
13.04.2015.
Perusal of complaint and documents filed by the complainant show that
allegations are serious in nature,
prima facie cognizable offence has been committed
which requires proper investigation by the police authorities. Therefore, police is
-- 2 of 3 --
directed to lodge FIR in the present matter in proper sections and investigate the
matter as per law, in view of the judgments in
Lalita Kumari Vs. State of UP 2013
(6) CTC 353 and “ Inspector of Police & Ors Vs. Battenapatla Venkata Ratnam &
Anr”. Police is further directed to investigate the matter as per law without being
influenced by the Sections mentioned in the complaint.
I have gone through the case file and heard the arguments of the
counsel at length,
prima facie, it appears that cognizable offence has been
committed in the present case. The said fact has also been admitted by the ASI
Dharmender Kumar vide status report dated 27.10.2023 in which the IO has stated
that in one of the CCTV footage, some people can be seen quarreling with the
complainant. Further the fact that the complainant was beaten by some persons and
he has sustained injury is duly corroborative with the ATR filed by the SI Vivek
Nandan on 28.03.2024.
It is, however, made clear that this order shall not be construed as a
direction to SHO PS Gandhi Nagar to arrest the accused persons. The present order
does not tantamount to an opinion of the court that an offence has been committed.
It is for the police to investigate the matter, to collect the evidence and to bring the
culprit to the book. Application u/s 156 (3) Cr. P.C. stands allowed and disposed off
accordingly.
Copy of this order be also sent to the SHO PS Gandhi Nagar for
compliance.
Put up on 27.05.2024. for compliance report and further
proceedings.
(ARVIND DEV)
MM(East)/KKD/Delhi
21.05.2024
-- 3 of 3 --