Satisfaction of the complainant with police investigation can lead to the quashing of an FIR.

Ved Prakash Vaish, J. (Oral)

1. This is a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Cr.P.C’) seeking quashing of FIR No. 154/2009 under Sections 182/219/220/342/365/120B/34 IPC registered at Police Station Keshav Puram.

2. Shorn off unnecessary details, the facts of the case are that on 28.09.2006, Head Constable Rameshwar along with Constable Amar Singh and Constable Jai Singh were on patrolling when they were reached near Prem Bari Pul within the jurisdiction of police station Keshav Puram one person was nabbed, whose identity was later on revealed as Sunil Kumar Dahiya (respondent no.3). During his search, one country made pistol and one live cartridge was recovered from the right pocket of his trouser. Head Constable Rameshwar made a call at police station Keshav Puram. Subsequently SI Bal Prakash and later on SHO police station Keshav Puram reached at the spot, who themselves made enquiry from Sunil Kumar Dahiya and FIR No. 624/2006 under Sections 25/54/59, Arms Act was registered at police station Keshav Puram.

3. The father of respondent no.3, Sunil Kumar Dahiya, made a complaint that his son Sunil Kumar Dahiya had been falsely implicated by police officers including the petitioner, who was posted as Station House Officer at police station Keshav Puram, at the time of registration of FIR No. 624/2006. The complainant alleged that the petitioner had a personal grudge against him and the petitioner had falsely implicated respondent no.3 in case FIR No. 624/2006.

4. Respondent no.3 moved an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. seeking direction for registration of FIR for the offences under Sections 182/219/220/342/365/468/471 IPC read with Section 120 B IPC. Vide order dated 8.6.2009, learned ACMM-1, Rohini, Delhi directed SHO police station Keshav Puram to register FIR against the accused persons under appropriate sections of law.

5. The petitioner filed criminal revision petition no. 31/2010 which was dismissed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-01, North West, Rohini, Delhi, vide order dated 9.11.2010.

6. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has filed the present petition. Notice of this petition was issued to respondent no.3. The affidavit of Mr. Gaurav Sharma, dated 21.4.2014 was filed stating that respondent no.3 refused to accept notice. However, fresh notice was again issued to respondent No.3 on 24.4.2014 and 15.5.2014. According to the office report, respondent No.3 was not found at the given address. The petitioner has filed the affidavit of Mr. Gaurav Sharma, clerk of counsel for the petitioner, dated 28.5.2014 stating that mother of respondent No.3 refused to accept the notice. Learned APP has also filed a report signed by Inspector Keshav Mathur, South Western Range, New Delhi to the effect that Suraj Bhan, father of respondent No.3 refused to accept the notice.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner was posted as SHO, police station Keshav Puram at the relevant time. Respondent no.3 was apprehended by HC Remeshwar, Constable Amar Singh and Constable Jai Saingh on 28.9.2006, while they were on patrolling duty, during search of respondent no.3 one country made pistol and one live cartridge was recovered. SI Bal Prakash and the petitioner also reached at spot and made enquiry from respondent no.3. A case bearing FIR No. 624/2006 under Sections 25/54/59, Arms Act was registered at police station Keshav Puram. Counsel for the petitioner also submitted that in the said case a closure report was filed and the same was accepted by learned Metropolitan Magistrate vide order dated 30.11.2009.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also pointed out that father of respondent no.3 is a head constable in Delhi Police. Respondent no.3 and his father made a complaint dated 6.10.2006, pursuant thereto an enquiry was conducted by Assistant Commissioner of Police (ACP), Sultan Puri. The Enquiry Officer submitt