Amit Goyal v. The State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) & Anr.

1. This is a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India r/w. Section 482Cr.P.C. filed by the petitioners seeking directions to the respondents to arrest the accused persons in case FIR No. 230/2018, u/s. 506/324/34 IPC, PS Mansarovar Park and to investigate the matter fairly and properly. The incident in question had happened on 06.10.2017 and the FIR was registered on 26.07.2018. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that right 2020:DHC:515 from the beginning, the local police has been favouring the accused persons and one of the accused Jyoti has been granted bail upon surrendering in the court with the cooperation of the police. It is submitted that petitioner was badly beaten up and burnt with hot iron rods by the accused persons. The said rods have also not been recovered by the investigating officer.

2. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that one of the accused Rajender Sharma has attacked the wife of the petitioner and molested her and the said incident was duly reported vide FIR no. 302/2019, PS Mansarovar Park but still the police have not arrested the accused persons.

3. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that on 21.08.2019 Sh. Rajender Sharma and his son Arun Sharma and two other persons had hurdled filthy abuses and also given beating to his wife. The local police is, however, unduly favouring Rajender Sharma and has not arrested him till date. It is, therefore, prayed that respondents be directed to arrest the accused persons in case FIR No. 230/2018, u/s. 506/324/34 IPC, PS Mansarovar Park, Delhi and to investigate the matter as per law.

4. On the other hand, Ld. APP for the state has opposed the petition and submitted that allegations levelled by the petitioner are false and vague. He has prayed for dismissal of the petition.

5. I have considered the rival submissions and also gone through the report submitted by the Ld. APP. An information vide DD NO. 21-B was received on 07.10.2017 at PS Mansarovar Park, Shahdara, Delhi from GTB hospital that one Amit Goyal has been admitted in the hospital after getting injured in a quarrel at Shanti Building, Main Mandoli Road, Delhi. On 26.07.2018 injured/ petitioner Amit Goyal came to PS Mansarovar Park and gave his statement that on 01.03.2017, he had met one Jyoti and her husband, one Rajender Sharma, Arvind Gupta and Rajesh and it was agreed that they will arrange a loan for him. The petitioner had given Rs. 50,000/- in cash to them and subsequently on 05.03.2017, he had also given a cheque of Rs. 30,000/- to Jyoti. Thereafter, he visited the office of accused persons several times but they neither got issued any loan nor returned his money. On 06.10.2017, when he had reached near Jyoti‟s office to ask for his money, she had met him in the way and taken him to a lonely place near railway station, Mansarovar Park where her husband, one Rajender Sharma, Arvind Gupta and Sheetal Prashad had tried to kill him by pressing his throat. Jyoti‟s husband and Sheetal Prashad had attacked him with hot iron rod on his right foot while other persons had beaten him with fist and kicks.

6. After recording statement of the petitioner, FIR No. 230/2018, u/s. 506/324/34 IPC, PS Mansarovar Park, Delhi was registered by SI Kapil Kumar. The case was handed over to ASI Dilbag for further investigation. Notice u/s. 41 A CrPC was served upon Sheetal Prasad on 06.10.2018 and on 26.10.2018 accused Jyoti @ Umesh Rani surrendered before the court of Ld. MM. KKD, Shahdara where she was arrested in the case and granted bail by the Ld. MM.

7. Subsequently on 30.01.2019, the case was handed over to ASI Kadir Ahmad for further investigation. On 08.08.2019 a notice u/s. 41-A CrPC was served upon co-accused Rajender Kumar Sharma and Arvind Gupta, who had joined investigation on the same day. During interrogation accused Rajender Kumar Sharma stated that petitioner Amit Goyal was selling one property bearing plot NO. 1/2600-B, Gali no.6, Ramnagar, Shahdara to him and through Jyoti he had given a sum of Rs.[5] lacs (cash) to petitioner as „Bayana‟. The said property belongs to petitioner‟s wife Anuradha Goyal. During interrogation on 08.08.2019, co-accused Arvind Gupta stated that Jyoti had introduced him to petitioner Amit Goyal for arranging loan for him against his property. However, as the petitioner could not produce the required documents, his loan was not sanctioned. On 09.08.2019, Jyoti‟s husband Sanjeev Kumar Dubey was interrogated who submitted that he is living separately for last 4 years and their divorce petition is pending in Karkardooma Courts. On 14.08.2019 co-accused Rajesh Kumar was also interrogated who submitted that he had arranged a loan of Rs. 10,00,000/- for Mrs. Anuradha Goyal (wife of the petitioner) and after that he has never met the petitioner.

8. Perusal of the record, thus, reveals that police is investigating the offence and one of the accused Jyoti has also been arrested. All the accused persons are joining the investigation. It is a settled law that Court cannot interfere in the investigation carried out by the investigating agency and also cannot direct the investigating officer to arrest particular person who is alleged to have committed an offence. Hon‟ble Supreme Court in case titled “Sakiri Vasu vs. State of U.P. and others, (2008) 2 SCC 409” has held that in case a person has a grievance that FIR has not been registered by the police on his complaint or even after registration of the FIR, no proper investigation is held, he can file an application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. before the learned Magistrate concerned. The Learned Magistrate can direct a proper investigation to be made and can also monitor the investigation. The relevant para runs as follows;

11. In this connection we would like to state that if a person has a grievance that the police station is not registering his FIR under Section 154 Cr.P.C., then he can approach the Superintendent of Police under Section 154(3) Cr.P.C. by an application in writing. Even if that does not yield any satisfactory result in the sense that either the FIR is still not registered, or that even after registering it no proper investigation is held, it is open to the aggrieved person to file an application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. before the learned Magistrate concerned. If such an application under Section 156 (3) is filed before the Magistrate, the Magistrate can direct the FIR to be registered and also can direct a proper investigation to be made, in a case where, according to the aggrieved person, no proper investigation was made. The Magistrate can also under the same provision monitor the investigation to ensure a proper investigation.

9. Hon‟ble Supreme Court in another case titled “M.C. Abraham and another vs. State of Maharashtra and others, (2003) 2 SCC 649” while dealing with a challenge to the order passed by the Nagpur Bench of the High Court of Bombay whereby High Court had directed to State to arrest the accused and to produce him before the Court, had observed that arrest of the accused is a part of the investigation and is within the discretion of the Investigating Officer. It is open to the Investigating officer in the course of investigation to arrest any person. Since this power is discretionary, a police officer is not always bound to arrest an accused even if the allegations against him is having committed of cognizable offence. The relevant paras runs as follows;

10. In view of the above law laid down by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court and the report submitted by the investigating agency, there are no reasons to interfere in the investigation being carried out by the investigating officer and there are no grounds to direct the respondents to arrest the accused persons. Moreover, the petitioner has an equally efficacious remedy by filing an application u/s. 156 (3) CrPC before Ld. MM in case he is aggrieved that proper investigation is not being carried out. Since it is a settled law that it is for the investigating officer to carry out the investigation and to decide at the appropriate time after conclusion of investigation whether to arrest the accused or not, the present petition is dismissed and stands disposed of accordingly.

BRIJESH SETHI, J.