Laeeq v. The Commissioner Of Delhi Police

$~9 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(CRL) 1126/2020 LAEEQ ..... Petitioner Through:

Mr A. K. Dubey, Mr Pawan Kumar and Mr Deepak Kalra, Advocates.

versus THE COMMISSIONER OF DELHI POLICE ..... Respondent Through:

Mr Avi Singh, ASC for State.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU

O R D E R

% 27.07.2020 [Hearing held through video conferencing] CRL.M.A. 9911/2020 & CRL.M.A. 9912/2020 1.

Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

W.P.(CRL) 1126/2020 2.

The petitioner has filed the present petition, inter alia, praying that directions be issued to respondent no.4 to lodge an FIR against respondent nos. 5 to 11 and further directions be issued to respondent nos.1 to 4 to provide security to the petitioner's life and property. 3.

The petitioner has filed a complaint against his wife; his brothers-inlaw (brothers of his wife); sister-in-law (sister of his wife); uncle of his wife (Khalu); and some unknown persons. He had alleged that his wife is pressuring him to transfer his property in her name and had also physically

assaulted him. He has further alleged that he has also been deprived of ₹6 lakhs.

4.

The petitioner is essentially aggrieved by the non-registration of the FIR in question and failure on the part of the concerned officials to undertake necessary steps for further investigation, including getting his medical check up in a government hospital.

5.

Mr Dubey, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner fears harm from respondent nos.5 to 11. 6.

Mr Avi Singh, learned counsel appearing for the State submits that the petitioner has filed the complaint in the wrong police station as the alleged incident of complaint did not taken place within the territorial jurisdiction of PS Seelampur but within PS Jafrabad.

7.

Insofar as affording protection to the petitioner is concerned, he submits that the concerned SHO (respondent no.4) has already considered the said request and has provided the petitioner telephone numbers of the beat staff and police officials, who can be contacted in case of any eventuality.

8.

In view of the above, this Court considers it apposite to direct SHO of PS Jafrabad to consider the petitioner's complaint dated 22.07.2020 and take such steps, as warranted. In the event, the concerned police officials do not register an FIR, it would be open for the petitioner to avail alternate remedies in this regard.

9.

Insofar as the petitioner's prayer that protection be provided to him is

concerned, this Court does not consider it apposite to pass any such orders considering that the petitioner's threat perception has been evaluated by the concerned SHO (PS Seelampur) and he has provided the telephone numbers of beat staff and police officials, who can be contacted in case of any eventuality.

10.

The petition is disposed of with the aforesaid observations. VIBHU BAKHRU, J JULY 27, 2020 MK