Back
2020 Supreme(Del) 365
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
RAJNISH BHATNAGAR, J.
Divya K. Singh - Petitioner
Versus
Union of India & Anr. - Respondents
W.P.(Crl) No. 1702 of 2019
Decided On : 06-03-2020
For the Petitioner:Mr. K. Sultan Singh, Sr. Adv. with Mr. V. Hari Pillai and Mr. Manish K. Saryal, Advocates
For the Respondent:Mr. Neeraj and Mr. Sahaj Garg, Advocates for R-1/UOI. Mr. R.S.Kundu, ASC for State with SI Harkesh Meena, P.S.Tilak Marg, N.D.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the decision to transfer the investigation in a criminal case to a different agency is based on the impartiality and thoroughness of the investigation conducted by the current investigating agency.
Headnote:
Transfer of Investigation - Criminal Law - IPC 420, IPC 419, IPC 120-B - The court discussed the provisions of IPC 420 (cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property), IPC 419 (punishment for cheating by personation), and IPC 120-B (punishment of criminal conspiracy) in the context of the petitioner's plea to transfer the investigation to a different agency. The court emphasized the impartial and thorough investigation conducted by the Delhi police and dismissed the plea for transfer of investigation.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a petition seeking the transfer of investigation in a criminal case related to impersonation and fraudulent property dealings. The petitioner alleged that the investigation conducted by the Delhi police was unsatisfactory and sought the transfer of the case to the Central Bureau of Investigation or another independent investigating agency.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the investigation conducted by the Delhi police was impartial and thorough. The court dismissed the petitioner's plea for the transfer of investigation to another agency, emphasizing that the charge sheet had already been filed and the investigation had been conducted from all angles.
Issues: The main issue was whether the investigation in the criminal case should be transferred to a different agency based on the petitioner's dissatisfaction with the manner of investigation conducted by the Delhi police.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the finding that the investigation conducted by the Delhi police was impartial and thorough, and that the charge sheet had already been filed considering all the submissions and complaints made by the petitioner. The court concluded that there was no need to transfer the investigation to any other agency.
Final Decision: The petition seeking the transfer of investigation was dismissed and disposed of accordingly.
JUDGMENT :
RAJNISH BHATNAGAR, J.
1. The petitioner has filed the present petition with the following prayer:-
“Issue an appropriate writ, order or directions to transfer the investigation in FIR No. 204/2016 dated 27.5.2016 from P.S.Tilak Marg, New Delhi to the Central Bureau of Investigation or any other independent investigating Agency as this Hon”ble Court may deem fit and proper.”
2. Brief facts of the case are that on 13.5.2016 a complaint was lodged by the petitioner at P.S.Tilak Marg informing that the complainant’s grand-parents owned several properties including H.No. F-146, Malcha Marg, New Delhi where the complainant lives with her mother. Her grand-father passed away on 15.1.2009 and her grandmother passed away on 24.9.2010. Their children including the petitioner’s father were embroiled in litigation in respect of the estate left behind by them. According to the petitioner, on 3.5.2016 one R.K.Yadav claiming himself to be the Assistant Commissioner of Police with the Crime Branch came to their house seeking details of the properties and ownership. He coerced the petitioner into providing copies of documents such as Will, Gift Deed and other documents with respect to their properties.
3. On 6.5.2016, the complainant received a notice from the court of learned Civil Judge, Patiala House in respect of civil suit bearing no. 190/2015 titled as “Smt. Lamkaur Vs. State of NCT of Delhi”. The petitioner and her father visited the court on 13.5.2016 and noticed that a group of people, including three men and two women, were discussing the said case. The petitioner heard them discussing certain documents pertaining to her late grandmother’s properties in Ghaziabad and Noida and saying that due to bad photocopying name of Labh Kaur was read as “Lam Kaur”, because of which, the suit was filed in the name of “Lam Kaur”. The petitioner took the photographs of all these persons and when the case was called, one of the two women presented herself as “Lam Kaur” and proposed to move an application for correction of the name. At that time, the petitioner and her father appeared before the court along with their lawyer and brought the true facts in the knowledge of the court and informed that the original “Labh Kaur” had passed away several years ago i.e in 2010 and plaintiff-lady before the court was an imposter. The matter was passed over and the court directed all the parties to produce their identity cards. When the matter was called again, no one appeared from the side of the plaintiff and the petitioner, on her part, submitted copies of the passport and death certificate of her grandparents namely Late S. Sohan Singh and Late “Labh Kaur”. The court after taking serious view in the matter directed SHO, P.S. Chankyapuri to submit a report in this regard. On 27.5.2016 which was the next date of hearing the concerned Judge directed the police officials from P.S.Tilak Marg to register an appropriate case if any impersonation or cognizable offence was made out. Upon inquiry, it was revealed that the said “Lam Kaur” was actually one Krishna Wanti and was impersonating as the petitioner’s grandmother. Accordingly, FIR bearing no. 204/2016 under Section 420/419/120-B IPC was register at P.S.Tilak Marg.
4. After the investigation in this case, charge sheet was filed by the Investigating Officer thereby naming Krishnawanti, Mohd. Zeeshan, Bharat Bhushan, Baljeet Singh and Pooja Sharma while exonerating accused Dharmender and Mohd. Javed on the ground of insufficient evidence.
5. Later on, a supplementary charge-sheet was filed by the IO qua one Sushil Bansal under Sections 420/419/467/468/471/120-B IPC. The petitioner being unsatisfied with the manner of investigation, pointed out various aspects to the higher officials, which were not investigated into, or conveniently ignored by the officials of P.S.Tilak Marg and/and or P.S.Chankyapuri on account of which the petitioner and her aged parents were constantly living a life of threat and apprehen
