A Delhi court recently took note of the wrong information given and the alleged non-compliance of an order by the police.
The court has called for a report from the Deputy Commissioner of Police (DCP) of Delhi over the wrong information given by the Station House Officer (SHO) to the court. The court also directed the SHO to appear personally to explain the reason for giving the wrong information to the court.
This matter pertains to alleged encroachment on government land and subsequent dispute over the same.
Additional Sessions Judge Atul Krishna Agrawal in his order dated November 29 said, "It appears that the wrong information was given by SHO IP Estate before learned Metropolitan Magistrate (MM) that SI Narender was no longer the IO of this case."
The court then directed, "Let a report be called from DCP with respect to the compliance of orders of August 3, 4, and 6.
The DCP shall also file the copy of communication sent by him to his senior officers regarding the transfer of investigation, to show that the communication was actually sent and not wrongly submitted before the court on August 4 and 6, the court added.
It further said that the personal presence of the SHO of IP Estate Police Station is also required for explaining why a false submission was made before the MM that the Investigation Officer (IO) has been changed.
The court had noted that the perusal of the record further shows that the Learned Predecessor on August 3 had directed for deduction of Rs 5,000 from the salary of SHO PS IP Estate, however, no report has been received from DCP if the said order has complied.
Further, it noted that Additional DCP-3 had submitted that he will inform the senior officers about the observations made by the Learned Predecessor in previous hearings and sought instructions for the transfer of investigation.
The same submission was repeated by Additional SHO IP Estate Police Station on August 6, but no communication was received regarding the compliance of the submissions before the court, the order read.
The court passed the direction while hearing the anticipatory bail plea of the accused Faheem, who moved the plea through advocate Deepak Sharma.
The predecessor Additional Sessions Judge Kamini Lau observed in her August 4 order that the additional DCPIII Akshat Kaushal had submitted, before the court, a decision relating to the transfer of investigations in the matter to some specialised agency dealing with land grabbing matters, appeared to be necessary but a decision regarding the same could only be taken at the level of higher officers that is Deputy Commissioner of Police and Additional Commissioner of Police.
He (Faheem) further said that the FIR in the said case was an outcome of a dispute arising out of a land dispute (Possession & Titular rights on the property constructed over an encroached government land).
Additional Sessions Judge Lau made the strict observation, "I have considered the submissions made and I am compelled to bring on record the fact that the role of the SHO Police Station IP Estate Inspector Sanjeev Kumar and the initial Investigating Officer SI Narender Kumar does not prima facie appear to be above board and comes under a scanner.
The court had said that initially the FIR was registered under Sections 323, 354, 354A, 354D, 380, 506, 509 of the Indian Penal Code and later the provisions under IPC Section 448, 380, 506, 34 were invoked with the later added provisions of Sections 323, 354, 354A, 354D and 509. All these sections provide punishment for less than seven years.
On one hand, the SHO and IO are vehemently opposing the present bail applications, on the other hand, there is non-giving of the notice under Section 41A of the CrPC and non-joining of applicants for investigations in terms of directions issued in the case of Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar and others, the court said.
The court also said that the correctness of the allegations made by the complainant also appears suspicious in view of video recordings of the incident captured on themobile phone and played in the court.
The court had noted that the cause for registration of the FIR was a dispute relating to large-scale encroachments over government land with massive illegal pucca constructions made at the time of the incident which is continuing without any inhibition for the sale of the same in an attempt to create ownership and possessory rights over the properties deliberately shown as a Jhuggi.
"Failure of the SHO to inform the concerned land-owning agencies about these illegal encroachments over the government land on Meer Dard Road and consecutive raising of illegal pucca constructions, particularly recent constructions which I am informed are still going on, with resultant criminal disputes including the registration of present FIR," the court had observed. (ANI)