Sh. R.P.S. Bhatti v. The State (Govt. Of NCT Of Delhi) & ANR.

$~30 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(CRL) 2626/2018 SH. R.P.S. BHATTI ..... Petitioner Represented by:

Petitioner in person versus THE STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI) & ANR.

..... Respondents Represented by:

Mr.Rajesh Mahajan, ASC for the State with Ms.Jyoti Babbar, Advocate and SI Mohd.Faizan Ghani, PS Pandav Nagar

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA

O R D E R

% 28.09.2018 1.

By this petition, the petitioner seeks registration of FIR and investigation thereon. Grievance of the petitioner is that the petitioner, a subscriber of mobile phone No.9873022365 issued by Vodafone Company, has been receiving phone calls for about 3 years on his mobile from some unknown caller who asks about one Mukesh and his whereabouts. Petitioner states that in this regard he has made complaints to PS Tilak Marg, Pandav Nagar and Farsh Bazar. Despite the complaints on 13th August, 2018 and 25th August, 2018, the caller again made a call to him. According to the petitioner, the caller wants to compel the petitioner to make payment of some other person i.e. Mukesh for his outstanding Vodafone bill and thus the caller has attempted to extort money from the petitioner. W.P.(Crl.) No.2626/2018 Page 1 of 2

2.

A status report has been filed. As per the status report, an inquiry was conducted into two complaints filed by the petitioner at PS Pandav Nagar and CDRs of the petitioner's mobile phone and the numbers from which he was receiving calls were obtained. On the CDR analysis, it was revealed that the petitioner received 8 phone calls from mobile number 9540017908 on different dates, one call from mobile number 8510040046 and two calls from the landline number 1205062012. The two mobile phones were issued in the name of Pathways Solution a telecommunication business at Laxmi Nagar run by Santosh Kumar Pandey with his wife. They had an agreement with Vodafone Mobile Service Ltd.

for collecting the outstanding bill amounts and in this regard the two abovenoted mobile numbers were issued to Santosh Kumar Pandey and in order to find out Mukesh Kumar, the calls were made for the reason there was a due of ₹760/- for mobile numbers 9873438019 for which an alternate number 9873022365 was given. In fact, mobile number 9873022365 was issued in the name of Mukesh Kumar in the year 2006 whereafter he obtained a post paid number 9873438019 in 2010. Though he retained the alternate number for sometime but thereafter blocked it which was obviously thereafter purchased by the petitioner. 3.

Considering the complaint and the facts noted, no cognizable offence having been found to be disclosed, no directions for registration of FIR can be passed.

4.

Petition is dismissed.

MUKTA GUPTA, J.

SEPTEMBER 28, 2018 mamta W.P.(Crl.) No.2626/2018 Page 2 of 2