Dheeraj Vashisht v. Commissioner Of Police Delhi & ANR

$~25 *

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ W.P.(CRL) 3903/2018 & CRL.M.A. 50291/2018 DHEERAJ VASHISHT ..... Petitioner Through Mr Manish Pratap Singh, Mr Ajay Singh, Mr Shubham Singh, Advocates.

versus COMMISSIONER OF POLICE DELHI & ANR ..... Respondents Through Mr R.S. Kundu, ASC with Mr Hitesh Vali, Advocates.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU

O R D E R

% 02.12.2019 1.

The petitioner has filed the present petition, inter alia, praying as under:- "I.

It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that, this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to pass appropriate directions to the Commissioner of Police, Delhi to explain the forging and for manipulating the Official Records related with complaint by the petitioner in complaint dated 15.01.2014 to the SHO Rajouri Garden, New Delhi (Annexure P-2 Page No. 43-44;

II.

To direct the investigation by Crime Branch of Delhi Police or Special Investigation Team for the manipulation, forging of the official records; III.

To ascertain the accountability of the senior authorities of the Delhi Police in furnishing false information under the statutory authority;

IV.

To take action against the concerned police personals i.e. SHO- Police Station Rajouri Garden and IO-SI Shri Rampal, IO-ASI Shri Vikram Singh, IO - ASI Shri Chandra Bhan (retired) Rajouri Garden for misusing their position and power to favour petitioner's wife by logging false complaints and supplying dubious and misleading information reports, deliberate untrue RTI replies to petitioner and Judiciary."

2.

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has referred to a response dated 27.08.2018 received by him pursuant to an application filed under the Right to Information Act, 2005. The petitioner was informed that no PCR call was received on 15.01.2014 at PS Rajouri Garden. However, a complaint was received from the petitioner. The same was marked to the concerned official for necessary action and the same is pending inquiry. 3.

The petitioner claims that the statement that no PCR call on 15.01.2014 was received is false and the official records have been manipulated.

4.

Mr Kundu, learned ASC appearing for the State submits that the PCR call may have been received at the Headquarters. It was not received at the said police station. Thereafter, information was received and due action had been taken by referring the complaint to the concerned official. It is in this context; the concerned officials had stated that no PCR Call has been received in P.S. Rajouri Garden and that statement is not false. 5.

The petitioner has also alleged that his daughter has been kidnapped by his wife (the mother of his daughter). It is apparent that there is a dispute regarding custody of the child. This Court is not persuaded to accept that any offence of abduction has been established or is indicated, on the part of the mother of the child. Admittedly, there is no order of any court granting

the petitioner exclusive custody of his minor child. 6.

The petition is, accordingly, dismissed.

The pending application is also disposed of.

VIBHU BAKHRU, J DECEMBER 02, 2019 pkv