Gurmit Singh Bhaghtana v. The State (Govt. Of NCT Of Delhi) And ANR.

$~38 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(CRL) 744/2023 GURMIT SINGH BHAGHTANA .....Petitioner Through:

Mr. Santosh Kumar Suman, Advocate.

versus THE STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI) AND ANR.

.....Respondents Through:

Mr. Yasir Rauf Ansari, ASC for State with Mr. Alok Sharma, Advocate with Ms. Saroj Yadav, SI, PS-IGI Airport.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA

O R D E R

% 22.05.2025 1.

The present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950 is directed against order dated 30th October, 2012, passed by the ACMM-I, Dwarka Courts in the proceedings arising from FIR No. 43/2009, registered at P.S. IGI Airport, under Sections 419/420/468/471/120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 18601 and Section 12 of the Passport Act, 1967, - titled as "State vs. Harvinder & Ors". By the impugned order, the Applicant has been declared to be a proclaimed offender.

2.

The primary contention of the Petitioner is that service of process under Section 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973,2 was not properly effected upon him, and that there was an error in the procedure. In 1 "IPC"

2 "Cr.P.C."

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 02/07/2025 at 01:06:42

support of this claim, the Petitioner places reliance on the statement of Head Constable Dilip Singh, who attempted to effect such service. In his statement, Dilip Singh recorded the name of the Petitioner's father as "Boota Singh." Based on this, the Petitioner argues that this is a case of mistaken identity, as his father's correct name is "Bood Singh", and not "Boota Singh".

3.

However, from a perusal of the chargesheet, it emerges that the Petitioner's name, as recorded in column No. 12, accurately reflects his father's name as "Bood Singh," which is undisputedly correct. This clearly indicates that the discrepancy in Head Constable Dilip Singh's statement, where the father's name is incorrectly recorded as "Boota Singh", is merely a typographical error, wherein the letter "D" in "Bood" appears to have been inadvertently recorded as "TA," resulting in the name "Boota." Such a typographical error does not substantiate the Petitioner's claim of mistaken identity or irregularity in the issuance of process under Section 82 Cr.P.C. 4.

In view of the above, this Court finds no reasonable basis to exercise its extraordinary powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to interfere with the findings of the impugned order. 5.

The petition is accordingly dismissed.

SANJEEV NARULA, J MAY 22, 2025 nk The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 02/07/2025 at 01:06:42