Dr. Gulshan Kumar Dogra v. State
$~13.
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(CRL) 3503/2016 DR. GULSHAN KUMAR DOGRA ..... Petitioner Through:
Mr. Azhar Qayam & Mr. Narender Kumar, Advocates along with petitioner in person.
versus STATE ..... Respondent Through:
Ms.
Nandita Rao, ASC for Mr.R.S.Kundu, ASC along with SI Prem Singh, for the State.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI
O R D E R
% 06.02.2017 Status report has been filed by the State and perused. In this case, the petitioner is seeking transfer of investigation in the case arising out of FIR No.490/2015 registered on his complaint under Section 420/ 34 IPC at PS - Defence Colony to the CBI or SIT or Crime Branch. The reason for the petitioner seeking transfer of investigation in the case is the lethargic and incompetent investigation done by the IO in the case till the time of filing of the petition. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner was enticed into sending his child for tuition/ coaching classes at the institute of the accused persons, who had guaranteed admission to the students taking coaching at their institution into the MBBS course. The petitioner claimed that for carrying out the admission the accused persons
demanded Rs.40 Lakhs as donation to be paid to the college. The petitioner withdrew the amount of Rs.40 Lakhs from his account and gave the amount to the accused. However, the petitioner's child was not granted admission in the MBBS course, and consequently, the complaint came to be filed. It appears that hardly any worthwhile investigation has been done by the police at the time when this petition was preferred. When the case was taken up on 07.12.2016, this Court observed on a, prima facie, appreciation that the investigation done thus far was lethargic. The IO was present in Court and he was warned that unless proper investigation is conducted, the Court may have to pass orders which may reflect on his competence. It was hoped that the IO shall make up for the loss by carrying out effective investigation done in the case.
It appears that even though the petitioner had premised his enticement on an advertisement issued by the accused persons in the Hindustan Times, the said advertisement has not been got verified till date. The receipt of Rs.40 Lakhs issued by the accused to the petitioner has also not been collected and sent for verification by the FSL. Pertinently, the statement of the accused Pramod Chander was recorded on 10.01.2017, wherein he has admitted to have received Rs.40 Lakhs from the petitioner. The admitted position is that Rs.19,20,000/- has been refunded to the petitioner and in relation to the amount of Rs.21 Lakhs, the cheques were issued by the accused on three occasions. On the first two occasions, the accused asked the petitioner not to deposit the cheque and that is how the successive cheques were issued.
of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The accused has admitted to have taken a personal/ friendly loan of Rs.40 Lakhs from the petitioner. However, there is no questioning of the accused on the aspect as to under what circumstances the petitioner would advance such a hefty loan to a person, who is only running a coaching institute where the son of the petitioner has been sent.
The investigation done thus far is wholly deficient and despite the warning and opportunity given to the IO, he does not seem to have mended his ways. If benefit of doubt is given to him, one can only say that he is not competent enough to carry out his job.
In these circumstances, the grievance of the petitioner appears to be justified, and even this Court does not have confidence that the case shall be properly investigated by the IO appointed from the PS - Defence Colony. Accordingly, the investigation in the present case is transferred to the Crime Branch of Delhi Police. The DCP, Crime Branch shall nominate a competent officer who shall carry forward the investigation in the case to its logical conclusion.
A copy of this order be sent to the Commissioner of Police, Delhi Police to review the functioning of the IO in the present case. The petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms. VIPIN SANGHI, J FEBRUARY 06, 2017 B.S. Rohella