Back
2019 Supreme(Del) 1529
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
R.K. Gauba, J.
Naresh Bansal - Petitioner
Versus
State (GNCTD) & Others - Respondents
Crl.M.C. No. 4461 of 2016
Decided On : 26-08-2019
For the Petitioner:Shiv Charan Garg, Imran Khan, Advocates
For the Respondents: Meenakshi Chauhan, APP.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the importance of credible evidence, including medical records and police reports, in assessing the truthfulness of criminal complaints and allegations of custodial violence.
Headnote:
Criminal Complaint - Allegations of Offences under IPC - Sections 365/368/342/341/506/323/330 and 120-B - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Summary of the acts and sections referenced and discussed by the court: The court discussed the allegations of offences under various sections of the Indian Penal Code, including abduction, wrongful confinement, extortion, assault, and criminal conspiracy. The court highlighted the evidence presented, including medical records and police investigation reports, to assess the truthfulness of the complaint and the alleged incidents of custodial violence. The interpretation of the medical evidence and the credibility of the complainant's allegations influenced the court's decision to dismiss the complaint.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a criminal complaint alleging multiple offences under the Indian Penal Code against several police officials. The complaint was dismissed by the Metropolitan Magistrate and the Court of Sessions, leading to a challenge in the High Court under section 482 Cr.P.C.
Finding of the Court:
The court found no merit in the petition and dismissed it, upholding the decisions of the lower courts. The court emphasized the lack of evidence supporting the complainant's allegations and the contradictory nature of the medical records.
Issues: The key issues revolved around the veracity of the complainant's allegations, the credibility of the evidence presented, and the interpretation of medical records and police investigation reports.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the assessment of the evidence, including medical records and police reports, to determine the truthfulness of the complaint and the alleged incidents of custodial violence.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed by the court, upholding the decisions of the lower courts and emphasizing the lack of merit in the complainant's allegations.
JUDGMENT :
1. On 19.08.2004, the petitioner presented a criminal complaint (No.473/1/2004) in the court of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi (CMM, Delhi) alleging offences punishable under sections 365/368/342/341/506/323/330 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) having been committed by the second to eighth respondents herein, along with one another (Constable Vijay Kumar) (since deceased). The said criminal complaint was subjected to inquiry under sections 200 and 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) in the course of which three witnesses were examined, they including the petitioner (complainant before the Magistrate) himself appearing (as CW-1) on 07.06.2010, the other two witnesses examined being Raj Kumar (CW-2), an official of Dr. Baba Saheb Ambedkar Hospital, Rohini and Rajeev Kumar (CW-3), an official of Bhagwati Hospital, Sector 13, Rohini, Delhi, the last said witness having been examined on 15.10.2012. Thereafter, at the stage of consideration of the material that had been brought on record, by order dated 22.01.2015, the Metropolitan Magistrate deemed it necessary to direct investigation to be carried out under section 202 (1) Cr.P.C. by the Deputy Commissioner of Police (DCP) through a responsible police officer. A report of investigation pursuant to the said direction for investigation under section 202(1) Cr.P.C. was submitted on 20.05.2015. Upon consideration of such material as had come on record during the inquiry, the Metropolitan Magistrate by order dated 17.12.2015 found no grounds to proceed further. It was instead concluded that the complaint lacked truthfulness. The complaint was, thus, dismissed under section 203 Cr.P.C.
2. The order dated 17.12.2015 of the Metropolitan Magistrate was challenged by the petitioner in the Court of Sessions invoking its revisional jurisdiction (by Criminal Revision Petition No.8/2016). The revision petition was dismissed, the view taken by the Metropolitan Magistrate having been upheld, by order dated 16.08.2016.
3. The present petition was filed bringing yet another challenge to the consistent orders of the two courts below, invoking inherent jurisdiction of this court under section 482 Cr.P.C. The petition has been resisted also by the first respondent/State, it having filed status reports. Submissions of both sides have been heard at length and the record has been carefully perused.
4. It will be appropriate to take note of the chronology of events leading to the filing of the criminal complaint by the petitioner before the CMM and certain developments that took place along side or in its wake.
5. It is indisputable that the second to eighth respondents are members of the Delhi Police, all of them being posted and deployed as members of special staff of South District of Delhi Police during the relevant period. A case of robbery had been registered in Police Station New Friends Colony on 30.08.2003 vide first information report (FIR) No.368/2003 involving offences under sections 392/397/34 IPC (hereinafter referred to as “the robbery case”). The police records, as brought on record by the report dated 20.05.2015 of investigation under section 202 (1) Cr.P.C. show that there was a secret information received about some connection of the petitioner with the said robbery case. The gist of such input had been reduced to writing vide daily diary (DD) entry No.12, dated 28.08.2003 of special staff of South District, its copy having been submitted as part of the investigation report. In the wake of the said information other respondent police officials had set out for verification, making a formal departure entry at 9:05 a.m. on 28.08.2003, they being led by the third respondent. As per the police records contemporaneously prepared, the petitioner herein was brought to the office of special staff and subjected to questioning, this also being formally recorded vide DD No.14 at 7:10 p.m. on 28.08.2003. The petitioner was eventually let off, after some in
