PRAKASH GODBHOLE Vs. STATE (NCT OF DELHI)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This a petition under Sec. 482 Cr.P.C., 1973 (erstwhile) r/w Sec. 583, Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Act, 2023 seeking a direction to the Investigating Officer to not harass the petitioner under the guise of investigation in respect of offences registered FIR No. 244/2024 dtd. 19/2/2014 registered under Ss. 420/468/471/120B of IPC, 1860, PS Mehrauli and other appropriate directions.

(2.) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that though the FIR is stated to have been registered on 19/2/2014, the petitioner was never summoned for the purposes of investigation till the year 2024. He states that on and from 4/6/2024 through till 10/9/2024, there has been at least 10 summonses issued to the petitioner in quick frequency, not giving him enough time to reach Delhi in order to answer the said summonses. He states that the petitioner admittedly is a resident of Bangalore, State of Karnataka. It is also known to the investigation authorities that the petitioner is a government servant. He states that keeping in view the status of the petitioner, it is not easy for the petitioner to take leave so frequently from the employer for answering the summonses. He states that the petitioner had made numerous requests that sufficient time to appear and answer the summonses be given to him which apparently had not been responded to. He states that repeated calling of the petitioner to Delhi for joining investigation is causing harassment to him. He states that in view of the suffering and harassment, this Court may pass appropriate directions to the IO.

(3.) Mr. Sabharwal, learned APP for the State refutes the submissions made by learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. He states that there are serious allegations of siphoning off funds and misappropriation of money running into crores. He also states that the petitioner, even though summoned number of times, has been absolutely unresponsive and non- cooperative during investigation process. He states that the primary reason for being called frequently is the non-cooperative attitude of the petitioner.