Smt Madhu v. State NCT of Delhi & Ors.

1. This is a petition seeking writ of mandamus in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents directing respondent Nos.[1] to 4 to transfer the complaints dated 14.09.2021 and 29.09.2021 to an independent and impartial investigating agency like Crime Branch, CBI and DIU.

2. It is stated by Mr Gahlaut, learned counsel for the petitioner that in the present case, the petitioner is the wife of one Sh Giriraj. It is stated that one Ms Rajni had developed a relationship with Mr Giriraj. Since Sh Giriraj i.e., the husband of the petitioner had refused to solemnize marriage with Ms Rajni, Ms Rajni had developed malice and personal vendetta against the petitioner. One Mr Gaurav and Mr Santosh are associates of Ms Rajni and on 11.09.2021, a quarrel took place in the office of Santosh who is friend of Giriraj. On 11.09.2021 Rajni had come to the office of Santosh on motorcycle of Giriraj. It is stated in the petition that it is Ms Rajni who had pushed Giriraj into Yamuna river in association with Gaurav and Santosh.

3. It is further stated in the petition that Gaurav had taken Giriraj to the office of Santosh at Bhajanpura where Rajni was already present. It is stated in the petition that on 11.09.2021 Gaurav and Santosh consumed liquor with Giriraj and thereafter murdered him. It is further stated that the petitioner gave a complaint on 14.09.2021 to SHO Timarpur and despite the complaint, no FIR under Section 302/120-B IPC has been registered. It is stated that the respondents have acted in a callous and an indifferent manner in investigating the present matter.

4. Ms Rao, learned ASC appears for respondent Nos.[1] to 5 and has filed a status report. As per the status report, it is stated that detailed investigation has been carried out in the present case. Subsequently, it transpired that Giriraj had not died by drowning but had rather fallen from Signature Bridge at around 09:45 p.m on 11.09.2021. She states that the statement of two public witnesses have been recorded who have not observed any foul play. They are people who were present at the Signature Bridge on the day of the incident. One of the witnesses namely Ismail resides there and the other witness is Trilok Chand is a Security Supervisor in DDA and was present on duty under the Signature Bridge on 11.09.2021.

5. The status report further states that the relatives of the deceased have also not suspected any foul play during initial stage of inquiry. Brothers of Giriraj namely Sachin and Raj Kumar were also examined and their statements were recorded. They stated that they did not suspect any foul play. Even alleged Rajni has also been examined. As per the statement of ARORA Rajni, Giriraj spoke to Gaurav and asked him to counsel his wife so that she does not quarrel with him. However, Gaurav declined to talk to the petitioner. Hence, Giriraj went to the Signature Bridge, stopped his bike and jumped off the Signature Bridge. He succumbed to the injuries in the hospital.

6. The status report further suggests that even Santosh and Gaurav were confronted with the allegations and their statements were recorded. It is stated that Giriraj was under heavy debt and was in depression due to his poor economic condition and also had some domestic problems and differences with his wife. The CDRs of Gaurav and Santosh were obtained and analyzed which seem to suggest that they were not near the place of incident at 09:45 p.m. It has also been revealed that Giriraj had taken a self employed personal loan for Rs. 5 lakhs from HDB Financial Services for which he had to pay installments.

7. The Inquest Proceedings have been concluded and no foul play has been found in the death of the deceased Giriraj, S/o. Mahavir Ojha, R/o E- 4/63D, 4th Pushta, Sonia Vihar, Delhi-110094. The Inquest Inquiry report has been submitted to SDM, Civil Lines and is pending before SDM.

8. At this stage Mr Gahlaut, learned counsel for the petitioner states that there is no documentary evidence collected by the IO with regard to the loan transaction. He further states that it is difficult to comprehend why the public witnesses did not try to save the life of Giriraj.

9. Ms Rao, learned ASC states that the public witnesses could not comprehend that Giriraj was about to jump from the Bridge. It is further stated by Ms Rao that the public witnesses tried to help Giriraj by taking him to the hospital. Ms Rao states on instructions from the IO that he had ARORA verified the loan transaction.

10. In this view of the matter, I am satisfied that the investigating agencies i.e. the police have done the requisite inquiry. No further directions are required in the writ petition. However, the petitioner is at liberty to participate in the inquest proceedings before the SDM and the SDM will give a notice to the petitioner at the time of hearing of the inquest report. In addition, all rights of the petitioner are left open to be exercised in accordance with law.

11. With these directions, the petition is disposed of.