KRISHAN GOEL Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Vide the present petition, the petitioner seeks direction thereby quashing of the order dated 28.01.2017 passed by the learned ASJ, West - 04, Tis Hazari, Delhi in Criminal Revision Petition No. 55860/2016 u/s 397 Cr.P.C. against the final order dated 28.01.2016 passed by learned Metropolitan Magistrate-08, West, Tis Hazari, Delhi whereby, Criminal Complaint No.312/1/14, P.S. Kirti Nagar, West District, Delhi for committing offences punishable under Sections 166/166A(a)/166A(b)/167/193/195/195A/196/199/323/330/452/447/448/ 451/452/465/466/471/ 506, r/w Sec. 120-B IPC filed by the petitioner, has been dismissed.

(2.) The case as stated in the present petition is that the petitioner and his son Chetan Goel had received notices u/s 160 Cr.P.C. dated 26.2.2014, for their appearance at P.S. Gulabi Bagh, Delhi on 27.02.2014, to join investigation in FIR No. 23/2014. The Petitioner and his son had accordingly appeared before Sanjay Kumar, ASI and SI Vimal Dutt, in P.S. Gulabi Bagh, Delhi. Investigation was carried on from 9.30 a.m. to 11.30 a.m. on 27.2.2014. During investigation in said case, the Petitioner came to know that he was falsely implicated in said case; by Shri Ashok Aggarwal, father-in-law of his daughter, namely, Ms. Monika Aggarwal. The Petitioner had continuously cooperated in investigation of said case and appeared before the IO, respondent No.3, on each and every date, as and when he was called by him and the petitioner had provided whatever information was asked by aforesaid Investigation Officers. On 19.3.2014 at about 7.10 p.m. the respondents No.2 to 4 along with two other police officials came to the residence of petitioner and asked the petitioner that respondent No.2 wishes to use the bathroom of his house. The petitioner without suspecting any foul play on part of respondents No. 2 to 4 and their two other associates, had allowed respondent No. 2 to use the bathroom and escorted him personally till bath room. Immediately respondents No. 3 to 4 and their two other associates gathered in the resident office of petitioner and later respondent No.2 had also joined them. Thereafter, the respondent No. 2 and their other associates started misbehaving with petitioner and shouted and threatened loudly to severely beat him, besides abusing him in unpardonable language. Respondents Nos.2 to 4 and their associates had also threatened the son and daughter of petitioner to the effect that they should advice their father, otherwise, they would beside severely beating him, would also do maximum damage to him and cause prejudice to his rights and interest.

(3.) Accordingly, apprehending danger due to extended threat, daughter of petitioner had made a telephonic call to PCR and reported the aforesaid matter at about 7.20 p.m. The respondent Nos.2 to 4 and their two associates, physically assaulted, manhandled the petitioner, took away two mobile phones from his resident office, without issuing him seizure memo for the same.