SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2010 Supreme(Del) 260

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
MR. JUSTICE V.K. JAIN
MOHD. SALIM .....Petitioner
versus
STATE ..... Respondent
Crl.M.C.No. 3601/2009
Decided on: 10th March, 2010

Advocates Appeared
Mr. R.N. Mittal, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Manoj Kumar, Adv.
Mr. Jaideep Malik, APP. Mr. Vijay Aggarwal and Mr. Vishal Garg, Advs. for the complainant.

Headnote:Indian Penal Code, 1860 Sections 302, 34---Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Sections 154, 156(3), 227, 228, 482 ---Murder---Direction given for registration of FIR---It was not legally permissible exercise of judicial discretion vested in Magistrate to direct registration of another FIR followed by fresh investigation--- He is not bound to direct investigation by police even if allegations made in complaint disclose commission of cognizable offence--- Mere pendency of investigation in first FIR will not be valid ground for refusing to register second FIR---Impugned order unsustainable and set aside. [Paras 11, 12, 13, 29, 30, 31, 38, 39]

JUDGMENT

V.K. JAIN, J.

1. This is a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking quashing of the order dated 1st August 2009 passed by ACMM, New Delhi under Section

156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure directing registration of FIR on a complaint filed by one Mohd. Rafique.

2. An FIR bearing No. 624/2005 under Section 302/34 of IPC was registered at Police Station Shahdara on 22nd December 2005, on the complaint filed by the petitioner regarding murder of his brother Mohd. Rashid by four persons including Mohd. Rafique, on whose compliant, the impugned order has been passed. Chargesheet against four persons including Mohd. Rafique was filed on 16th March 2006 and the case is pending trial before the Court of Sessions.

3. In his complaint, filed on 21st July 2006, Mohd. Rafique alleged that on 22nd December 2005, when he was sitting in the house of his sister Aamna, at about 9 PM, he came out hearing some noise and found some boys abusing each other. He further alleged that when he objected to this, deceased Mohd. Rashid intervened by asking as to whether the road belonged to his father. This, according to the complainant, was followed by exchange of hot words and the associates of Mohd. Rashid, including one Aarif, also threatened him with dire consequences. Mohd. Rashid thereupon asked a boy to call his brother. Within about 5 minutes, two accused named in the complaint, namely Ansar and Salim, along with some other persons reached there and started abusing the complainant. All of them were having weapons in their hands, Ansar being armed with an iron Kataar, Salim being armed with a knife, Rashid with a Karchi and Aarif having an iron Saria. According to the complainant, they all tried to assault him and their associates also gave fist and kick blows to him. He further alleged that when accused Ansar and Salim tried to assault him, someone caught hold of him, and on seeing them, he somehow saved himself, but, Ansar and Salim were not able to stop their hands and caused injuries to Rashid, from their knife and Kataar. It was further alleged in the complaint that, thereafter, the accused in the complaint took Rashid to hospital after threatening the complainant, who himself received a number of injuries at the hands of accused persons. The police came to the spot and took the complainant to GTB hospital and got him admitted there. In the hospital also, the complainant was beaten by the accused persons and was saved from them by the police officials. Since Rashid was declared dead, the police registered a case under Section 302/34 of IPC against complainant and others but, they did not register any case against the accused persons.

4. An application under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure was also filed by the complainant Mohd. Rafique seeking direction for registration of FIR against persons accused in the compliant.

5. Vide order dated 8th September 2006, the learned Metropolitan Magistrate directed the SHO to file a progress report in respect of incident of 22nd December 2005. Vide report dated 30th May 2007, the Investigating Officer of the case, through the concerned SHO, reported that the injuries caused to the complainant were self inflicted and sought filing of the complaint. Statements of some witnesses were recorded by the Investigating Officer before he submitted the above referred report to the learned Metropolitan Magistrate. Those witnesses told the police officers that the complainant Rafique had himself caused injuries on his person, with a view to create defence for him.

6. Since no one appeared for the complainant, the complaint was dismissed in default on 22nd January 2009. On a Revision Petition filed by him, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge vide order dated 5th February 2009 set aside the order dismissing the compliant in default and restored it. Order dated 1st August 2009, directing registration of FIR under appropriate provisions of law, with fu


































































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top