Abhimanyu v. State (NCT Of Delhi) & ANR

$~4 *

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ W.P.(CRL) 1447/2019 ABHIMANYU ..... Petitioner Through:

Mr V. Madhukar, Mr Ajeet Kumar and Mr Neeraj Kumar, Advocates.

versus STATE (NCT OF DELHI) & ANR ..... Respondents Through:

Mr Rajesh Mahajan, ASC for State with Ms Jyoti Babbar and Ms Shrutika Vedi, Advocates.

SI Vikas Singh, PS South Rohini.

SI Harinder Singh, PS Mangol Puri.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU

O R D E R

% 05.03.2020 1.

The petitioner has filed the present petition, inter alia, praying as under:

"a.

Issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to issue a clarification clearing the name of petitioner from list of history sheeter and surveillance register of P.S. Mangol Puri and/or:

b. Issue writ of mandamus directing the respondents to withdraw the name of petitioner from list of history sheeter of area by holding such name as illegal and not in accordance with law."

2.

Mr Mahajan, learned ASC states that the petitioner was placed in Bundle 'A' but has now been downgraded to Bundle 'B'. He states that the persons placed in Bundle 'B' are not placed under surveillance. He further

states that the name of the petitioner has been placed for review before the concerned DCP. He states that if there is no involvement of the petitioner in any crime, then his name would be removed from bundle 'B' and placed in a personal file.

3.

The status report has also been filed, which indicates that the petitioner was allegedly involved in three FIRs - FIR No. 337/2013 under Section 323/341/506/34 of the IPC, registered with Police Station South Rohini; FIR No. 58/2015 under Sections 25/27/54/59 of the Arms Act, 1959 registered with Police Station Mangol Puri; and FIR No. 1367/2015 under Section 195A of the IPC, registered with Police Station Mangol Puri. The petitioner's name was placed in Bundle'A' on account of the said FIRs and there is no allegation that he is involved in any other matter. 4.

It is seen that two of the FIRs were registered by the same complainant (Ravi, son of Ram Kishan) and the third FIR was registered by Sh. Ram Kishan.

5.

The petitioner contends that the said FIRs were registered at the instance of the complainants to falsely implicate him in view of certain family disputes, that had arisen between the petitioner and the complainants. He states that the petitioner has been acquitted in all the three cases. 6.

Considering the above, this Court is not persuaded to accept that the petitioner's name ought not to be put in Bundle 'A' in the first place. Nonetheless, the petitioner has been downgraded to Bundle 'B' and the respondents are in the process of removing his name from Bundle 'B' as well. This Court considers it apposite that the same be done expeditiously. It

is so directed.

7.

The petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms. VIBHU BAKHRU, J MARCH 05, 2020 RK