Mr. Arvind Kr. Gupta v. State

1. This is a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. against order dated 21.08.2013 passed by learned Metropolitan Magistrate (South West) District, Dwarka Courts, Delhi whereby the petitioner was summoned for the offence under Section 201/218 IPC.

2. In nutshell, the brief facts of the case are that complainant/respondent No.2 herein filed a complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. read with Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. on the allegations, inter alia, that the complainant and his brother met with an accident on 24.01.2011 at about 9.15 p.m. and accordingly FIR No.24/2011 under Section 279/338 IPC was registered at PS Chhawala, Delhi. The number plate of the vehicle which hit the motor cycle of the complainant was DL-9C-QS-3623. The complainant and his brother picked the broken plate and tried to give the same to the accused (petitioner) but he refused to take the same. On 27.03.2011, the 2013:DHC:2807 accused who was IO of said FIR went to the residence of complainant and informed that he had impounded the vehicle bearing registration No.DL-4C-AA-7798 in this case and obtained signatures of brother of the complainant on some papers. The complainant and his brother told him that he has impounded wrong vehicle and the number of vehicle involved in the said accident was DL-9CQS-3623. The accused told the complainant that the said vehicle was not insured one. The complainant had given written complaint dated 09.05.2011 to the ACP, PS Najafgarh, but to no avail.

3. Vide impugned order dated 21.08.2013, learned Metropolitan Magistrate summoned the petitioner for the offence under Section 201/218 IPC.

4. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has preferred the present petition.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner urges that on 24.01.2011 on receiving DD No.24A, the petitioner reached the spot and found the motor cycle No. DL4S-AR-8920 in accidental condition and no one was found present at the spot. During inquiry, another call was received vide DD No.27A that injured was admitted to Orthoplus Hospital, Najafgarh, Delhi. The petitioner obtained MLC of injured Matlub who was declared unfit to make statement. One Mohd. Ayub was present and his statement was recorded by the petitioner on 25.01.2011. On the basis of said statement, FIR No.24/2011 under Sections 279/338 IPC got registered. In his statement dated 25.01.2011, Mohd. Ayub has stated that he could not note down the number of the offending vehicle.

6. The counsel for the petitioner also submits that during investigation, petitioner recorded statement of one Rizwan, who was an eye-witness to the incident. He had stated that registration of offending vehicle was DL9C-QS-3623 and on the said statement of Rizwan, notice was given to the owner/driver of the offending vehicle. In response to said notice, Mr.Praveen Yadav, grandson of Mr.Rattan Lal, owner of the vehicle, appeared and stated that the offending vehicle was gifted by Rattan Lal to his granddaughter namely, Suman at the time of her marriage, who in turn sold the same to one Ombir. The petitioner called Mr.Ombir to join the investigation and recorded his statement. It is also submitted by counsel for the petitioner that during investigation, Mohd. Matlub, brother of respondent No.2 made statement to the police and stated that the number of offending vehicle was DL-4C-AA-7798. On the basis of statement of Matlub dated 02.03.2011, notice under Section 133 of Motor Vehicles Act was given to the said vehicle namely Lalit Vats. During investigation, Mr.Lalit Vats confessed involvement of vehicle in the accident and disclosed that vehicle was driven by Deep Chand @ Deepu and statement of Lalit Vats was recorded.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the petitioner had conducted investigation in accordance with law. There was no reason for the petitioner to seize the vehicle No.DL-4C-AA-

7798. The petitioner proceeded on the statement of Mohd. Matlub. The ingredients of Sections 201 and 218 IPC are not made out.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has pointed out that the charge-sheet in case FIR No.24/2011 was filed. The accused Deep Chand sought permission to compromise the case with the complainant/injured and paid Rs.20,000/- to the complainant/injured towards compensation. The statement of accused Deep Chand as well as statement of injured Matlub were recorded on 04.04.2011 by learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Dwarka, New Delhi. On the basis of statement of both the parties, the case was disposed of vide order dated 12.04.2014. Certified copy of statement of accused Deep Chand, statement of injured Matlub dated 04.04.2014 and order dated 12.04.2014 passed by Judge, Lok Adalat, Plea Bargaining, Dwarka Courts, New Delhi have been placed on record.

9. During the trial, injured Mr.Matlub had appeared before the trial Court on 04.04.2014. He had not disputed that the number of offending vehicle was wrongly recorded by the petitioner. The injured made a statement that he had settled the matter with the accused Deep Chand and received compensation of Rs.20,000/-. On the statement of complainant as well as accused in case FIR No.24/2011, it cannot be said that the petitioner had recorded wrong number of offending vehicle or impounded wrong vehicle and even if it was so, the accused neither had knowledge nor reason to believe that he was impounding wrong vehicle. Accordingly, the requirement of Sections 201 and 218 IPC are not fulfilled.

10. For the aforesaid reasons, the impugned order dated 21.08.2013 passed by learned Metropolitan Magistrate (South West) District, Dwarka Courts, Delhi is set aside.

11. Accordingly, the petition stands disposed of. Crl.M.A. No.17438/2013 The application is dismissed as infructuous.

(VED PRAKASH VAISH) JUDGE May 27, 2014 gm