PRADEEP DHINGRA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Notice. Learned APP and Mr. Aman Lekhi, Senior Advocate accepts notice on behalf of the State and respondent no.2 respectively. In view of the urgency explained by learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, I have heard the matter finally with the consent of the parties.

(2.) This petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C read with Section 483 Cr.P.C. challenges the order dated 15.09.2011 passed by learned MM, Dwarka, New Delhi whereby summons have been ordered to be issued against the petitioner and also Mr. Satyapal Gupta under Section 380, 411, 120B IPC in FIR No. 315 of 2005 and the matter has been listed for their appearance before the learned MM on 16.11.2011. A prayer is also made for declaring the FIR No. 315 of 2005 Police Station Naraina and the investigation conducted therein as illegal, unlawful and unwarranted. Further prayers have also been made to cancel the charge-sheet filed in the aforesaid FIR.

(3.) The main contention of the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner is that the investigation in the aforesaid case is going on and was not complete and so the charge-sheet as filed was illegal and unlawful. It is submitted by learned Senior Counsel that the charge-sheet could only be filed after the completion of investigation. Reference was made to Page 26 of the charge-sheet wherein it was stated that further investigation was still going on to ascertain the circumstances under which the record of Ministry of Cooperate Affairs went missing from the concerned office and whether there was any connivance on the part of the official concerned. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner further submitted that in the absence of any evidence regarding filing of the relevant documents against the petitioner, he could not have been charge-sheeted or summoned. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner relied upon the cases of Kapil Garg v. State, 2004 3 RCR(Cri) 966 and Tunde Gbaja v. Central Bureau of Investigation, 2007 2 JCC 1306.