$~19 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision: 25.01.2024 + CRL.M.C. 2023/2022 ISH KUMAR ..... Petitioner Through: Mr.Lalit Valecha, Ms.Taniya Bali, Mr.Sameer Chopra, Mr.Fawaz Aftab, Advs.

versus STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. ..... Respondents Through: Mr.Shoaib Haider, APP with Insp Manjeet.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA NAVIN CHAWLA, J. (ORAL)

1. This petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short, ‘Cr.P.C.’) challenging the order dated 11.02.2022 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Impugned Order’), passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate-10, South-East District, Saket Courts, Delhi, in CT Case No.6261 of 2020 titled as Ish Kumar v. Nadir Shah & Ors., dismissing an application filed by the petitioner herein under Section 15(2) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 for initiating contempt proceedings against the concerned DCP/ACP/SHO and IO.

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed CRL.M.C. 2023/2022 Page 1 of 9

2. It is the case of the petitioner that:-

(a) the petitioner is in the business of the dealing in second had cars. He was approached by the accused persons including one Delhi Police Inspector proposing to sell a Mahindra Scorpio car for a total sale consideration of Rs.11,00,000/-. The accused had demanded Rs.5,00,000/- in cash. The petitioner paid Rs.37,000/- vide a bank transfer, while Rs.13,000/- to the accused persons was paid by the petitioner in cash on the same day. The balance amount was to be paid on the next day. When the balance token money of Rs.4.5 lakhs was being paid in cash, he was surrounded by the accomplice/associates of the accused persons claiming themselves to be from the Income Tax Department. They forced the petitioner to sit in their car and he was taken to Sarai Kale Khan, where he was threatened on the gun point. He continued to receive threats and demand of Rs.50,00,000/-

from the respondents.

(b) Due to such threats, he was forced to leave Delhi and travel to Udaipur, Rajasthan. From there, he went to Jaipur. The petitioner states that he was abducted and kidnapped from Hotel Cygnett Inn Grand, Jaipur, Rajasthan for ransom and was brought to Delhi where he was beaten. He alleges that he was kept in the unauthorized custody.

(c) He made a complaint in this regard to the higher authorities in the Delhi Police but no action was taken.

(d) Faced with the harassment, he filed a petition before this Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed CRL.M.C. 2023/2022 Page 2 of 9 Court being W.P.(CRL.) No.1525/2020 titled as Ish Kumar v. State & Ors. This Court, vide its order dated 01.10.2020, was pleased to allow the petitioner to withdraw the said petition with liberty to approach the concerned Magistrate with an application under 156(3) of the Cr.P.C.

(e) The petitioner thereafter, filed an application under Section

156(3) of the Cr.P.C. being CC No.6261/2020. The learned MM, vide its order dated 09.10.2020, directed the ACP (PHQ) Vigilance and the concerned SHO to file the status report.

(f) On an application filed by the petitioner, the learned MM, vide its order dated 13.10.2020, directed the DCP/ACP to ensure preservation of the CDRs of the accused persons and the relevant CCTV footage.

(g) As the compliance report was not filed, by an order dated

22.10.2020, the learned MM directed the compliance report to be filed by the concerned DCP/ACP/SHO.

(h) In purported compliance thereto, a report dated 23.10.2020 was filed by the Inspector Prem Kumar (IO), wherein, in order to mislead the learned MM, he only stated that he had sent a letter / notice under Section 91 of the Cr.P.C. to the service provider to preserve the CDRs and to the Manager/owner of Hotel Cygnett Inn Grand, Jaipur, Rajasthan to preserve the CCTV footage dated 30.07.2020.

(i) The application filed by the petitioner under Section 156(3)

of the Cr.P.C. was dismissed by the learned MM vide order Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed CRL.M.C. 2023/2022 Page 3 of 9