LAWS(DLH)-2006-4-193

VIRENDRA SINGH TYAGI Vs. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI THROUGH COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, POLICE HEADQUARTERS I.P. ESTATE DELHI

Decided On April 04, 2006
Virendra Singh Tyagi Appellant
V/S
State Of Nct Of Delhi Through Commissioner Of Police, Police Headquarters I.P. Estate Delhi Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is charged for offence punishable under Sec. 384 read with Sec. 120 IPC, on reading of the FIR if appears that his name is there in the FIR. It is urged by the learned counsel for petitioner that this case has been filed against the petitioner by the complainant as a counter blast as the petitioner earlier had given an affidavit before the SHO because of matrimonial discord between the son of the complainant and his wife, therefore, being annoyed over filing such an affidavit the complainant falsely implicated the petitioner in this case. It is further urged by learned counsel for the petitioner that by no stretch of imagination could the petitioner be present on the spot on 29.7.2004 as on that date he was admitted in Government hospital because of having sustained leg injury and sufficient material was produced before the investigating officer in that regard confirming his admission in the Government hospital. Learned counsel for the petitioner took me through the documentary evidence filed by him in this petition. I am told by the learned counsel for the petitioner that these documents also find place in the charge sheet. Reading of these documents indicate that the investigating officer had made detailed inquiry about the factum of the petitioner's being admitted in the Government hospital. He had examined the petitioner on that date. The investigating officer also examined the doctor who had attended the petitioner. He was the medical officer of that Government hospital.

(2.) Both these officials stated that petitioner was admitted ; on 28.7.2004 and was discharged on 30.7.2004. Not only this, even hospital card has been produced on record confirming the admission of the petitioner in the hospital on 28.7.2004 and the date of discharge has also been shown as 30.7.2004. When these documents are coming from the investigator itself, there is no reason as to why prima facie these documents be not treated as authentic documents and once these documents are taken as authentic documents, there is no likelihood of the petitioner being convicted at all as he could not be present on the spot when alleged incident had taken place. Even otherwise, they are appear reasons in this case to implicate the petitioner as the petitioner had sword an affidavit prejudicial to the complainant's interest and therefore, there is every likelihood that the complainant might have found an occasion to implicate the petitioner.

(3.) Furthermore, reading of the FIR recorded at the instance of the complainant does not indicate at all if the petitioner had taken part in committing the offence of extortion as no act has been attributed to him except his mere presence which otherwise, looks doubtful. For all these reasons, is to put the petitioner to trial would be an exercise in futility as there is sufficient material on record to indicate that the petitioner was not involved in the incident at all. Petitioner seems to have been falsely implicated because of the rivalry.