NAHAR SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners in this writ petition stated that it lodged an FIR No. 498 of 2003 on 25th November, 2003 in respect of the offence committed by one of its employees Ahmad Jamal in collusion with M/s Supportscape India Pvt. Limited and it directors. Since the FIR was registered only under Section 408 of Indian Penal Code, the petitioner filed a complaint before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate in respect of the offences under Section 66 of the Information Technology Act. The police did not take proper action against the accused persons so the petitioner was compelled to seek relief from the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate. The Court of learned MM issued directions to the SHO to take necessary action to prevent offenders from leaving India. As a counterblast, the accused lodged an FIR NO. 403 of 2003 dated 2nd December, 2003 at PS Vidayakpur in Jaipur against the staff of the petitioner and also against the police officials of Delhi in order to pressurize the police team. The registration of FIR at Jaipur was done at the behest of retired Director General of Police and senior police officials of Jaipur, due to political pressure with the result that Delhi Police failed to get the case investigated properly and accused Ahmad Jamal was successful in leaving India with the crucial evidence loaded in laptop. It was alleged that Ahmad Jamal was being provided undue protection by Delhi Police and police was not functioning as per law. A prayer is made that the respondents Commissioner of Delhi Police and SHO be directed to investigate the matter and arrest the accused and recover the secret information and records from accused and his passport be confiscated and respondent No.4 Director General of Police at Jaipur be directed not to interfere directly or indirectly into the investigation of the FIR registered at Delhi.

(2.) In the writ petition filed by the accused Ahmad Jamal a challenge was made to the order of learned MM passed in the complaint case whereby he had directed the SHO to ensure that accused would not leave the country and also directed that the investigation be done by the officer of the level of DSP into the allegations made in the complaint. This Court vide order dated 3rd September, 2007 quashed the order of learned MM to the extent it gave directions to SHO that the offender would not leave the country, after considering entire facts and circumstances.

(3.) A report was called from Delhi Police in this petition as well. It is not the case of Delhi Police that any hindrance was being created in the investigation of this case by Jaipur Police. Rather a perusal of the FIR lodged at the instance of petitioner reflects the influence of petitioner over Delhi Police. The FIR in respect of offence under Section 408 of the IPC was registered at 1.35 am in the night and Delhi police accompanied the petitioner's employees on the very morning to Jaipur in order to apprehend Ahmad Janal, an ex-employee of the petitioner putting up at Jaipur temporarily. He and others were brought to Delhi by the Delhi Police. The conduct of Delhi Police would shows that the petitioner was having considerable influences in Delhi Police with the result that the police, who does not normally register an FIR even in heinous crimes, registered the instant FIR at 1.35 am in the night.