Back
High Court of Delhi
SURESH KAIT, J.
Mukesh Kumar
Versus
State
CRL.M.C. No. 3549 of 2007
Decided on : 03-01-2012
Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Offences under Section 167/201/218/420 read with Section 511/120B - Section 193/196/200/201/ 209/120B - Section 197 Cr. P.C. and Section 140 of the Delhi Police Act, 1978
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenges the order summoning him for offences under various sections of the Indian Penal Code. The case arises from a car accident and subsequent legal actions involving conflicting statements and allegations of a criminal conspiracy.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner was not a part of official duty to give false information or frame incorrect records, and therefore, the bar of Section 197 Cr.P.C. did not apply to him. The court also held that the provisions of Section 140 of the Delhi Police Act were not complied with, as no sanction was taken before filing the complaint against the petitioner.
Issues: The issues revolved around the petitioner's official duty, the requirement of previous sanction, and compliance with Section 140 of the Delhi Police Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the interpretation of the petitioner's official duty, the mandatory requirement of previous sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C., and the non-compliance with Section 140 of the Delhi Police Act.
Final Decision: The impugned order summoning the petitioner was quashed, as the court found that the alleged offence committed by the petitioner was a part of official duty and no sanction was obtained as required by law.
SURESH KAIT, J.
1. The instant petition is being filed to assail the impugned order dated 26.06.2007 whereby ld. MM has summoned the petitioner for the offences under Section 167/201/218/420 read with Section 511/120B Indian Penal Code, 1860.
2. I note, vide order dated 02.05.2008 the proceedings before the Trial Court were stayed.
3. The petitioner in the instant petition has raised legal issues amongst other that prosecution has failed to obtain sanction as required under Section 197 Cr. P.C. and under Section 140 of the Delhi Police Act, 1978, therefore, the court has no power or jurisdiction to proceed with the trial of the case.
4. Facts in brief giving rise to registration of the present FIR are that on 05.03.2001 at 1.55 PM on the Outer Circle, Opposite Statesman Building, Connaught Place, New Delhi, a car bearing no. DL4C-G-9122 met with an accident. Pursuant to that FIR No.99/2001 was registered at Police Station – Connaught Place, New Delhi. During the course of investigation injured Ravinder Gupta and Lalit Roy were examined. Injured Ravinder Gupta submitted that car was being driven by Rajesh Gupta whereas injured Lalit Roy had stated that car was being driven by Ravinder Gupta. Thereafter, charge-sheet under section 279/337 Indian Penal Code, 1860 was filed against accused Rajesh Gupta.
5. Thereafter, injured Lalit Roy filed a claim for compensation before Motor Accident Claim Tribunal vide case no.140/2001 wherein Oriental Insurance Company was also made a respondent. In the said case, injured Lalit Roy submitted that Car bearing no. DL4C-G-9122 was being driven by accused Ravinder Gupta. In the said case, Oriental Insurance Company filed its Written Statement, wherein they submitted that out of the present FIR one more Suit no. 198/2001 was filed, wherein it was submitted that accused Rajesh Gupta was driving the vehicle. Injured Lalit Roy on coming to know that other injured Ravinder Gupta in connivance with accused Rajesh Gupta was submitting false facts and were trying to obtain compensation through Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, injured Lalit Roy in Suit no. 98/2001 filed an application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. before the Court on 10.10.2002 and vide order dated 23.09.2003, ld. Trial Court directed SHO, PS-Connaught Place, New Delhi to register an FIR and investigate the matter.
6. In the said application under section 156(3) Cr.P.C, it was alleged by injured Lalit Roy that injured Ravinder Gupta, car Owner Ms. Sunita Gupta and accused Rajesh Gupta in connivance with IO / SI Mukesh Kumar / Petitioner was trying to obtain compensation from Motor Accident Claim Tribunal in suit no. 98/2001 by submitting false evidence. It was also alleged by the injured Lalit Roy that on day of incident i.e. 05.03.2001, the vehicle in question i.e. Car no. DL4C-G-9122 was being driven by injured Ravinder Gupta and two persons i.e. Lalit Roy and Ravinder Gupta were travelling in the said car. IO / SI Mukesh Kumar / Petitioner in connivance with injured Ravinder Guupta and Rajesh Gupta filed a false suit and wrongly made Rajesh Gupta as an accused in FIR no. 99/2001, PS-Connaught Place, New Delhi.
7. It is not in dispute that FIR no. 631/2003, PS-Connaught Place, New Delhi was registered, and after investigation charge-sheet has been filed by another I.O. against accused Rajesh Gupta, Ravinder Gupta & Ms.Sunita Gupta for the offences Under Section 193/196/200/201/ 209/120B Indian Penal Code, 1860
8. It is also not in dispute that charge-sheet FIR 631/1003, there is no complaint of court concerned under Section 195 Cr.P.C. with regard to the offences under section 193/196/200/209 Indian Penal Code, 1860. Therefore as per Section 195 (b) Cr.P.C. the cognizance of offences under the above-mentioned provision cannot be taken in the light of there being no complaint made by court concerned with regard to these offences.
9. Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate has recorded in its impugned order dated 26.06.2007 from the charge-s
AI
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
