CHANCHAL BHATTI Vs. STATE NCT OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners, Chanchal Bhati, Ranvijay and Kalu, by this Petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Code, for short) have prayed for quashing of FIR No. 173/2003 dated 23rd February, 2003 under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as IPC, for short). THEy have also prayed for setting aside of the order dated 26th March, 2007 passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate issuing non- bailable warrants and the subsequent proceedings thereafter. THE petitioners further pray for setting aside of the order dated 19th April, 2007 initiating of proceedings under Sections 82 and 83 of the Code against the petitioners.

(2.) FIR No. 107/2003 under Section 379, IPC was registered at P.S. Shalimar Bagh on 23rd February, 2003 on a complaint made by one Navdeep Khurana that his car bearing no. DL-2CG-1022 was stolen in the night ' intervening 18/19th February, 2003. It is submitted that the petitioners and one Rakesh were arrested in FIR Nos.167,168 and 169/ 2003 P.S. Kavi Nagar, Distt. Ghaziabad, U.P. along with the said car on 1st March, 2003. An unnumbered FIR had also been registered against Ranvijay Singh. Intimation of the arrest of the petitioners was given to P.S. Shalimar Bagh with reference to FIR No. 107/ 2003 vide D.D. entry 40B dated 4th March, 2003. Possession of the stolen car was taken by the Investigating Officer on 21st March, 2003 and warrant was issued by the Metropolitan Magistrate under Section 72 of the Code on 27th March, 2003. However, the petitioners could not be arrested as they were released on bail on 13th March, 2003 from the Ghaziabad jail. Thereafter no steps were taken by the Investigating Officer to arrest the petitioners or conduct further investigation till H.C. Satbir Singh wrote a note dated 5th June, 2006 that the earlier Investigating Officer HC Dinesh Singh had not carried out any proceedings, had not written the case diary or arrested the accused persons. This note was addressed to ACP Rohini and permission was sought to order reinvestigation.

(3.) TO decide the said contention, provisions of Chapter XXXVI - ?Limitation for taking cognizance of certain offences" relating to limitation are required to be examined.