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

2023 Supreme(Online)(Del) 23843

$~2

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+

W.P.(CRL) 2187/2022

NEERA BATRA AND ORS

..... Petitioner

Through:

Mr. Pooja Dhingra, Mr. Praveen Suri

and Ms. Kajal Kadam, Advocates.

versus

STATE OF DELHI AND ORS

..... Respondent

Through:

Ms. Nandita Rao, ASC for State with

Mr. Amit Peswani, Advocates.

SI Ankit ,PS Nangloi.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANISH DAYAL

Advocates:
PRAVEEN SURI

ORDER

% 11.01.2023 CRL.M.A. 18936/2023 (Exemption)

1. Exemption allowed subject to just exceptions. W.P.(CRL) 2187/2022

1. By this petition the petitioner seeks appropriate directions to respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to further investigate a complaint dated 28th August 2022, in view of subsequent developments having taken place after the filing of the charge-sheet in FIR No. 101 of 2008 registered at PS Nangloi and subsequently filed a supplementary charge-sheet against respondent Nos. 3 and 4. In Criminal Case No. 70788/2016 titled as State v Suresh Kumar Jain and Anr., the basis of the plea of the petitioner is that since the trial has progressed in relation to FIR No. 101 of 2008 which was registered on the complaint of the petitioner, subsequent investigation as sought can only be directed by this Court and as per law cannot be directed by the learned Trial Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Vinu Bhai, Haribhai, Malaviya and Ors v State of Gujarat and Anr , (2019), 17 SCC 1 where the Hon’ble Supreme Court has expounded on the powers of the Magistrate under Section 156(3) to ensure subsequent investigation. However, that power is restricted to the stage prior to the trial having commenced. The material for the subsequent investigation is alleged to be the documents which were seized by the investigating authority while investigating the two cross FIRs registered at the behest of the accused viz. FIR Nos. 174/2010 and 196/2011 in respect of which closure report was filed by the investigating agency. The documents substantiate the fact that these documents were title documents as had been propounded by the accused herein and were found to be forged. So petitioner therefore contends that the investigating agency ought to take these into consideration and file a supplementary charge-sheet accordingly.

2. In view of the same, issue notice to the respondent Nos 3 and 4 on steps being taken by the petitioner through all permissible modes including PF/RC, courier, SMS, Whatsapp, email etc., returnable before this Court on 28 th February, 2023.

3. These facts have been also confirmed by Ms. Nandita Rao, Additional Standing Counsel, on instructions of the IO who is present in the Court.

4. The State may file a status report before the next date of hearing.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner seeks liberty to serve the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 through their counsel appearing in the Trial Court.

6. Order be uploaded on the website of this Court. ANISH DAYAL, J JANUARY 11, 2023/RK Click here to check corrigendum, if any

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
whatsapp-icon Back to top