Full Text
CRL.M.C. 3879/2010
DHARAMBIR SINGH Petitioner
Through: Mr. SC Sagar, Advocate
Through: Mr. Sunil Sharma, APP for State
15.12.2010 This petition has been preferred by the investigating officer in a case FIR
No.55 of 2007 dated 19'*^ January 2007 under Sections 302/427 IPG police station
Dabri seeking quashing/ setting aside of directions given by learned Sessions
Judge who conducted the trial. In para 39 of the
ORDER
Ramesh Chaudhary and fabricated the documents in the police station with a predetermined object i.e. to save
Ramesh Chaudhary from being implicated in this case.
Such conduct of the 10 amounts to failure in discharge of official duties. This kind of tendency in the police official to collude with the culprits in lure of money etc has become veiy rampant nowadays and isa major factor for erosion of ith
2010:DHC:9297 m faith of the common man in the police system. The time has come to fa/ce stern action against such police officials, who bring insult and disrespect to the whole system by their nefarious deeds. The time has come to take immediate steps to curb the spread of this virus and make the police system trustworthy.
39. Therefore, I direct the DCP, South West to carry out fresh investigation in this case himself and submit a report to the Court within two months. A copy of this judgment be sent to the DCP South West for the said purpose. A copy of this judgment be also sent to the Commissioner of Police, Delhi, with the direction to initiate enquiry against the 10 of this case Inspector Dharamvir Singh for not conducting the proper, fair and impartial investigation in this case. The report oftheenquiry shall be submitted to this Court within two months." It is argued by the counsel for the petitioner that the learned trial court passed these directions because of the reason that the secret informer was not made as a witness. He submits that the police has a privilege not to make the secret informer as a witness. Aperusal of judgment of learned trial court would show that in the opinion of trial court, investigation in this case was deliberately misdirected so as to give benefit to the real culprit and to falsely implicate the accused persons. The learned trial court after observing the conduct of the investigating officer gave above directions. Thedirections are in the nature offurther investigation by senior police officer in order to unearth the truth. I consider that it is the duty of every court to see to it that not only the innocent is honourably acquitted but also to seethat the real culprits are brought to book. Whenever a court gives directions for further investigation, they are not required to beset aside orquashed but should bewelcomed since thecourt hasa duty to ensure that a proper and truthful investigation should be done and if the investigating officer, if had acted malafidely, should be suitably punished and action should be taken against him. In my view, the trial court has acted within its jurisdiction. Ifind no reason to set aside para 39 of the judgment. "J'he petition is hereby dismissed.
SHIV NARAYAN DHiNGRA.J DECEMBER 15,2010 X rd