Dinesh Rai vs State of NCT of Delhi and Others

V.K. Shali, J.—This is a writ petition filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking transfer of the investigation to Crime Branch, Delhi Police or any specialized agency, like CBI. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the present petitioner was working as a part-time driver with the complainant who got an FIR No. 31/2012 registered with PS:Greater Kailash-I, New Delhi against the petitioner for an offence u/s 380 IPC. It is the case of the petitioner that he is alleged to have stolen jewellery articles from the house of the complainant, while as the fact of the matter is that the son of the complainant had actually committed the theft of the jewellery articles. It is stated that this fact was admitted by the son of the complainant in his presence as well as in the presence of some of the independent persons. Accordingly, it has been stated that the present petitioner, being a poor person, is being framed in the matter.

The State has filed the Status Report and disputed the averment that the petitioner is being framed. On the contrary, it has been stated that after the registration of the FIR, the matter was investigated and the petitioner was interrogated who made a disclosure statement, as a consequence of which the recovery of jewellery articles was also effected from a shop situated in South Extension, New Delhi. It has also been stated in the Status Report that some of the jewellery articles were also recovered from House No. R-106, Greater Kailash-I, New Delhi, where one Mohan Shivaji Patil, a shopkeeper of Mega Jewellers, N.D.S.E.-II, New Delhi was living. After completing the investigation, a Chargesheet is also stated to have been filed in a competent court.

I have heard Mr. Vikas Pahwa, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. Sunil Sharma, the learned APP.

Mr. Vikas Pahwa has vehemently contended that the petitioner is a poor person and was working only as a part-time driver and he has been wrongly framed by the complainant and her son in this case. It has been stated by him that the son of the complainant had himself admitted that he had stolen the jewellery articles, as he was in the need of money and the present petitioner is only being made a scapegoat. In order to arrive at this independent conclusion, the learned Senior Counsel has contended that the investigations of the case may be transferred to the Crime Branch, Delhi Police to arrive at an impartial finding.

This prayer has been opposed by the learned APP on the ground that the investigations have already culminated into the filing of a Chargesheet against the present petitioner and the articles of jewellery have also been recovered in pursuance to the Disclosure Statement made by the petitioner. He, therefore, states that this is only a ploy to distract the attention of the Court.

I have carefully considered the rival contentions and gone through the records.

I find myself in agreement with the learned APP that since the Chargesheet has already been filed against the present petitioner for an offence under Sections 380 IPC, there is hardly any scope for arriving at a conclusion, different than the one which has already been reflected in the Challan. So far as the version of the petitioner is concerned, he can establish his defence before the Trial Court. It is ultimately for the Trial Court to frame the charges against the petitioner where he can take whatever defence is available to him in law. I find no merit in the contention of Mr. Pahwa. Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed.