W.P.(CRL)/1910/2015 of RAJESH SHARMA Vs STATE ( NCT) OF DELHI

*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI+W.P.(CRL) 1910/2015RAJESH SHARMA

versus

STATE ( NCT) OF DELHI

..... RespondentThrough:Mr. Sanjay Lao, ASC for the State

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMARO R R%11.12.2015

Crl. M.A.17737/2015

The petitioner prays for an early hearing of this case considering theurgency in getting the writ petition decided.

For the reasons stated in the application, the date of 28.01.2016 iscancelled.

The application is allowed.

W.P.(Crl.) 1910/2015 is taken up today for consideration.

W.P.(CRL) 1910/2015

The petitioner is employed with the Indian Railways as an Inspector.He submits that right from 2012 till date he has been made accused in about14 cases by one Smt. Kiran Patial. He further submits that Smt. Kiran Patialhas been in the habit of falsely implicating other persons also. She has infact lodged case against Rajesh Patial, her husband, way back in the year

2003. list of such cases has been provided by the petitioner in the presentwrit petition.

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner draws attention of thisCourt to the prayer made in the writ petition.

The reliefs sought in the present writ petition are as hereunder:

“(a)issue an appropriate direction(s) and order in the natureof writ of mandamus to the respondent and its officialsnot to harass the petitioner in the name of interrogation.of writ of mandamus to the respondent and its officialsnot to harass the petitioner in the name of interrogation.(b)issue direction to proper investigation & enquiryregarding the contents of different FIRs against thecomplainant impartially.regarding the contents of different FIRs against thecomplainant impartially.

(c)Pass such any other order(s), which this Hon’ble courtmay deem fit and proper in favour of petitioner andagainst the respondent.”may deem fit and proper in favour of petitioner andagainst the respondent.”

Mr. Sanjay Lao, Additional Standing Counsel, with reference to thestatus report, submits that in none of the cases referred to by the petitioner,even though registered for serious offences like rape etc, the petitioner hasbeen arrested. The investigating agency has taken note of the fact thatseveral cases have been filed by Smt. Kiran Patial. But the allegation ofharassment of the petitioner by the police is seriously denied.

Mr. Sanjay Lao, Additional Standing Counsel admits that thefrequency with which the petitioner is being accused at the instance of oneperson, smacks of false implication.

Be that as it may, it would not be in the interest of policeadministration not to investigate cases lodged against any person. However,the Police would take into account, while investigating such cases in whichSmt. Kiran Patial is the informant/complainant and the petitioner is anaccused that in the past also such cases have been lodged against him. The

investigating agency will keep in mind that the petitioner is governmentservant and is required to perform his duties. If he is made to visit PoliceStation every now and then, his functioning would be disturbed.

Considering the stand of the State, no further order is required to bepassed in the present petition.

The petition is disposed of.

ASHUTOSH KUMAR, J

DECEMBER 11, 2015ns