TEJ PAL SINGH Vs. STATE NCT OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner Tej Pal Singh was arrested on 18.03.2004 at about 12.30 night in case FIR No. 123/04, under Section 292 IPC of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). Petitioner has sought quashing of the FIR on the grounds that the Petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case which is borne out from the police record itself.

(2.) It is submitted by Mr. C. S. Sharma, learned counsel for the Petitioner that as per the prosecution story Head Constable jai Prakash along with Constable Dayanand was coming back after making enquiry of DD No. 39-A when at about 11.30 P. M. he received a secret information at Machhli Wali Gali, New Layalpur, Krishna Nagar, Delhi on the basis of which he conducted a raid in the house of the Petitioner/accused, whereas infact DD No. 39-A was registered only at 11.50 P. M. on 18.03.2004 on receipt of a wireless message from PCR on the call of the Petitioner himself. At the time when the alleged raid was conducted, Head Constable Jai Prakash, Ct. Dayanand were in the Police Station in connection with a kalandra prepared under Section 107/151 Cr. P. C. It is argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that under these circumstances when DD No. 39-A was registered at about 11.50 P. M. there could not have been any inquiry of the said DD at about 11.30 P. M. , especially when Head Constable Jai Prakash, Constable Dayanand were present in the police Statioon at about 1.30 P. M. in the kalandra case being DD No. 37-A dated 18.03.2004 titled 'State v. Pradeep'. It is further argued that Petitioner himself had called the PCR at 100 number at about 11.50 P. M. and 11.53 P. M. from his residence A-94, Old Anarkali, Delhi regarding a quarrel between the Petitioner and brother of his brother-in-law on the issue of his sitting in the said house of the Petitioner. It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the Petitioner that the Petitioner was apprehended at 2/11, New Layal Pur, Delhi at about 11.50 P. M. as alleged whereas he was at A-94, Old Anarkali, Delhi and he was never apprehended by the police as claimed in the prosecution story. It is also alleged that no raid was conducted in the premises and subsequently the Petitioner has been booked in this case under Section 292 IPC.

(3.) Ms. Mukta Gupta, learned Standing Counsel for the State disputes the averments made in the Petition and has controverted the arguments of the learned counsel for the Petitioner. It is argued that HC Jai Prakash was not having his wrist watch at the relevant time and there could be some mistake in the assessment of time of respective investigation and raid conducted at premises No. 2/11, New Layal Pur, Delhi and therefore some discrepancies seem to have occurred regarding the time of conduct of raid, investigation conducted by Head Constable Jai Prakash, regarding DD No. 39-A and also the inquiry of DD No. 37-A. She also pointed out that DD No. 39-A was found bogus as no quarrel had taken place at A-94, Old Anarkali, Delhi. The discrepancies are only regarding the intimation of DD No. 39-A at 11.30 P. M. and the raid conducted at 11.50 P. M. and the rukka was sent to the Police Station at about 12.50 P. M. for registration of the case.