LAWS(DLH)-2004-5-85

RAKESH CHAUHAN Vs. STATE

Decided On May 27, 2004
RAKESH CHAUHAN Appellant
V/S
STATE (NATIONAL CAPITAL TERRITORY OF DELHI) Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard.

(2.) On 20.4.2001 the complainant reported to the police about theft of certain properties from his office premises on 18.4.2001 on the basis of which a case FIR under Section 457/ 380 IPC was registered at P.S. Greater Kailash, Part-1, New Delhi. On 24.4.2001 the complainant made another complaint addressed to the Commissioner of Police in regard to the same very incident seeking registration of case under Section 395/496/ 34 IPC on the basis whereof Sections 395/ 506/34 IPC were subsequently added to the FIR in question.

(3.) Arguing for bail learned counsel for the appellant points out that shifting stand has been taken by the complainant in these two complaints in as much as in the first complaint he stated that at the relevant time when the incident had taken place he was not present in the office and he came to know about the incident only on being told about it next day by one of his employees. In the second complaint, however, he daims to have been present at his office when the alleged incident took place. Learned counsel contends that not only that there is discrepancy in regard to the actual presence of the complainant at the time of alleged incident even the details of the properties which were allegedly looted from his office premises are differently mentioned in the two complaints.