Jai Bhagwan v. State (NCT Of Delhi) & ORS

$~43 *

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ CRL.M.C. 4157/2017 JAI BHAGWAN ..... Petitioner Through:

Mr. Gautam Das, Adv.

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

Ms. Manjeet Arya, APP for State with ASI Kabool Chand, P.S. Vasant Kunj (South).

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. PATHAK

O R D E R

% 12.10.2017 Petitioner has prayed for quashing of FIR No. 288/2017 under Sections 354(A)/354(D)/506 IPC registered at police station Vasant Kunj South on the complaint of respondent nos. 2 to 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has been falsely implicated. It is submitted that respondent nos. 2 to 4 are employees of one Mr. Ashutosh Vijay, who was tenant of petitioner. Mr. Ashutosh Vijay is running a company in the name and style Royal Ltd. Co. He is now illegally occupying the premises even after expiry of lease period.

Petitioner had written to the SHO of police station Vasant Kunj South that his tenant may falsely implicate him. At the behest of Mr. Ashutosh, respondent nos. 2 to 4 have lodged the complaint. FIR is vague. No date and time has been given.

Learned APP contends that investigation is complete and charge-sheet has also been filed yesterday.

She further submits that statements under Section 164 Cr.P.C. of respondent nos. 2 to 4 were recorded wherein they have specially alleged that petitioner used to come to their office in absence of their boss and pass lewd remarks, inasmuch as, would touch them inappropriately.

Veracity of the version of the complainant has to be tested during the trial and cannot be disbelieved merely on accused saying that he has been falsely implicated. Three girls have levelled specific allegations and veracity of their versions has to be tested during the trial. It is trite law that inherent powers of High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. have to be exercised sparingly in quashing of the FIR and statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and the other material collected during the investigation has to be taken on face value and if it discloses ingredients of offences alleged FIR cannot be quashed.

For the foregoing reasons, petition is dismissed. Miscellaneous application is disposed of as infructuous.

A.K. PATHAK, J.

OCTOBER 12, 2017/ga