YASHPAL AHUJA Vs. STATE OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition has been made by the petitioner under Article 226 read with section 482 Cr.P.C. for issuance of Mandamus directing the State to register an FIR in respect of an offence allegedly committed by respondent No.2 and officials of Special Cell in illegally taping and intercepting telephonic conversation between the petitioner and others. It is submitted in the petition that Mr.Rajbir Singh of Delhi Police who was earlier an acquaintance and friend of petitioner, had become enemical to the petitioner. He illegally got the telephone of petitioner taped. He states that an FIR should be registered for this offence or investigation should be got done by CBI or an independent agency.

(2.) Status report was sought from the respondents i.e. Bharti Tele Venture Ltd. and Commissioner of Police. Bharti Tele Venture Ltd., respondent No.2 in its response stated that no taping of conversation was done. Only details of call made from the telephone of the petitioner were supplied to the Special Cell. The response of Delhi police was also same that no illegal taping of telephone was done. Counsel for the petitioner was not satisfied with the response and stated that official of respondent No.2 had earlier admitted that the taping of telephonic conversation was done but later on changed her stand and stated that only call record was furnished. This change of statement was under pressure and thorough investigation was needed. It is stated that Court of MM has no power to order investigation by other agency except police.

(3.) If taping of conversation of petitioner's mobile phone has been done, the same could be done only by giving instructions to the service computer thorough use of another software and the entire data is normally in the computer and stands stored. The evidence can be summoned in the Court of MM and no special investigative skills are required necessitating investigation by CBI. The petitioner should approach the concerned MM and lodge an appropriate complaint either under section 200 Cr.P.C. or under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. Writ petition is not the remedy for registration of FIR. When law has provided specific remedy for this purpose which should be availed by the petitioner. The petition is also not maintainable in view of the judgment in Aleque Padamsee and Ors. vs. Union of India and others, 2007 (9) Scale 275.