Jasmohan Singh vs.state & Ors.

Jasmohan Singh vs State & Ors.

Type Court Judgment Court Delhi Decided Oct 12, 2018

~4 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1218729

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1218729
Court: Delhi High Court
Decided On: Oct 12, 2018
Subject: Criminal

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Criminal

Key legal issue: Criminal

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Jasmohan Singh

Advocate Mr. Diljit Singh Ahluwalia, Mr. Amarjit Singh Bedi, Mr. Varun Chandiok

Respondent

State & Ors.

Advocate Ms. Meenakshi Dahiya

Excerpt

.....with section 482 cr.p.c. to seek, inter alia, setting aside of the orders of the courts below or, in the alternative, for the matter to be remanded to the court of metropolitan magistrate for fresh consideration.5. the learned counsel for the petitioner referred to bhagwant singh vs. commissioner of police & anr., (1985) 2 scc537to crl. m.c. no.5246/2018 page 2 of 3 support his plea that the order passed by the metropolitan magistrate directing further investigation is essentially an order under section 156(3) cr.p.c. he also referred to ruling of a learned single judge of this court reported as manohar singh & anr. vs. state & ors., 2013 scc online del 1386, to submit that the revisional remedy against such order cannot be denied. but, the crucial question persists as to whether the petitioner, a person who could possibly be an accused in the future proceedings, can raise issues as to the manner or method of investigation.6. in the considered view of this court, the revisional court reached the correct conclusion on the above core question. there are no special circumstances made out why the petitioner could be allowed to have a say at this stage of the process with regard to the manner or method of the probe. the petitioner would have a right to participate when the investigating agency completes its task and submits its final report under section 173 cr.p.c.7. reserving the contentions of the petitioner, this court declines to interfere under section 482 cr.p.c. or under article 227 of the constitution of india at this stage.8. the petition stands disposed of accordingly. this disposes of pending applications as well.9. dasti under the signature of court master. october12 2018/vk r.k.gauba, j.crl. m.c. no.5246/2018 page 3 of 3

Full Judgment

$~23 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Decided on:

12. h October, 2018 + CRL.M.C. 5246/2018 and Crl.M.A.34193-34194/2018 JASMOHAN SINGH ........ Petitioner

Through: Mr. Diljit Singh Ahluwalia, Advocate with Mr. Amarjit Singh Bedi, & Mr. Varun Chandiok, Advocates. versus STATE & ORS. ........ RESPONDENTS

Through: Ms. Meenakshi Dahiya, APP CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA for the State ORDER (ORAL) 1. On the complaint of the second respondent, Police Station Economic Offences Wing of Delhi Police (EOW) had registered first information report (FIR) No.71/2013 to investigate into the crimes allegedly committed under Sections 409/406/420/468/471/4
of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). The police concluded the investigation and submitted a final report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) dated 18.07.2014 seeking cancellation of the case against which the first informant lodged a protest petition. It appears the petitioner described as “proposed accused” also appeared with applications under Section 340 Cr.P.C. seeking initiation of certain criminal action. Crl. M.C. No.5246/2018 Page 1 of 3 2. The Metropolitan Magistrate, by order dated 24.09.2016, considered the cancellation report and issued directions for further investigation of the case declining to act on the applications under Section 340 Cr.P.C.

3. No appeal under Section 341 Cr.P.C. against the disposal of the applications under Section 340 Cr.P.C. has been preferred. The petitioner approached the court of Sessions by criminal revision petition No.15/2018 to bring a challenge to the order of the Metropolitan Magistrate issuing directions for further investigation, taking exception, inter alia, on the ground that what had been ordered to be carried out was a fishing and roving inquiry or essentially a re- investigation which was not permissible, the order being non-speaking and beyond the contours of the FIR. The revisional court, however, referred, inter alia, to the ruling of the Supreme Court in Union of India vs. W.N. Chadha, AIR 1993 SC1082to hold that a person who may turn out to be an accused in the case has no right of any say as regards the manner and method of investigation.

4. The revision petition having been dismissed by order dated 29.09.2018 by the Additional Sessions Judge, the present petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 Cr.P.C. to seek, inter alia, setting aside of the orders of the courts below or, in the alternative, for the matter to be remanded to the court of Metropolitan Magistrate for fresh consideration.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner referred to Bhagwant Singh vs. Commissioner of Police & Anr., (1985) 2 SCC537to Crl. M.C. No.5246/2018 Page 2 of 3 support his plea that the order passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate directing further investigation is essentially an order under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. He also referred to ruling of a learned Single Judge of this Court reported as Manohar Singh & Anr. vs. State & Ors., 2013 SCC OnLine Del 1386, to submit that the revisional remedy against such order cannot be denied. But, the crucial question persists as to whether the petitioner, a person who could possibly be an accused in the future proceedings, can raise issues as to the manner or method of investigation.

6. In the considered view of this court, the revisional court reached the correct conclusion on the above core question. There are no special circumstances made out why the petitioner could be allowed to have a say at this stage of the process with regard to the manner or method of the probe. The petitioner would have a right to participate when the investigating agency completes its task and submits its final report under Section 173 Cr.P.C.

7. Reserving the contentions of the petitioner, this court declines to interfere under Section 482 Cr.P.C. or under Article 227 of the Constitution of India at this stage.

8. The petition stands disposed of accordingly. This disposes of pending applications as well.

9. Dasti under the signature of Court Master. OCTOBER12 2018/vk R.K.GAUBA, J.

Crl. M.C. No.5246/2018 Page 3 of 3

Same Court & Year Delhi · 2018 Same Parties Jasmohan Singh vs State & Ors. Same Subject Criminal