Full Judgment Text
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Order: May 09, 2013
+ CRL.M.C. 3348/2012
DHEERAJ SINGH RANA ...... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Bankim Kulshrestha, Advocate
versus
STATE (NCT OF DELHI) & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Ms. Jasbir Kaur, APP for the State.
+ CRL.M.C. 127/2013
DHEERAJ SINGH RANA ...... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Bankim Kulshrestha, Advocate
versus
STATE (NCT OF DELHI) & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Ms. Jasbir Kaur, APP for the State.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P.MITTAL
O R D E R
G. P. MITTAL, J.
Crl.M.A.1960/2013 & 3314/2013 in CRL.M.C. 3348/2012
Crl.M.A.2058/2013 & 3312/2013 in CRL.M.C. 127/2013
1. By virtue of these Applications under Article 134-A of the Constitution
of India and Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
(Cr.P.C.) the Petitioner seeks issuance of a certificate of fitness to file an
Appeal in the Supreme Court against the order dated 04.02.2013 passed
by this Court dismissing a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. read with
Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
Crl. MC 3348/2012 Etc Page 1 of 5
2. It may be noted that two Applications one under Section 340 Cr.P.C. and
another under Section 91 Cr.P.C. were filed by the Petitioner. The sum
and substance of the two Applications can be extracted from the order
dated 13.08.2012 passed by the learned ASJ hereunder:-
“…. It is submitted that in the statement which was made in the
correspondence dated 25.07.2010 by the Joint Commissioner of
Police to Shri P.K. Jalali, copies of which were sent to Secretary to
Lt. Governor, Delhi Additional Secretary (Home), GNCT of Delhi,
S.O. to Special Commissioner of Police/Secretary and DCP,
Headdquarters, PHQ and other officers, it was stated that three
persons wearing masks started firing indiscriminately upon Smt.
Phoolan Devi. Furthermore, in the proceedings of the Parliament
from 25.07.2001 to 31.07.2001, it is mentioned that according to
FIR facts gathered from Senior Police officials, the assailants were
wearing masks. It is submitted that as per the challan, accused
persons were allegedly identified at the time of incident, which is
in strong contradictions to the statements made initially in the
Parliament and in the official documents. It is submitted that
investigations are concocted and fabricated in order to procure
illegal detention from the court of law. Therefore, offence of
purjery has been committed for which complaint had to be made
under section 340 Cr.P.C.
The said application is supported with another application
under Section 91 Cr.P.C. seeking production of the letters written
to various agencies and also the statements recorded in the
Parliament.
The State has filed a joint reply to the application under section
91 CrPC and under Section 340 CrPC, wherein the documents
which have been sought are not within the power and possession of
the investigating agency. Moreover, the documents pertaining to
Parliament proceedings have already been placed on record by the
accused himself. Moreover, it is no where claimed that these
documents are required for the cross examination of the
prosecution witnesses. None of the prosecution witnesses are the
witness to any of these documents. Therefore, there is no ground
on which the said documents can be summoned. For the same
Crl. MC 3348/2012 Etc Page 2 of 5
reason, the application under Section 340 CrPC is not
maintainable…..”
3. In the Application under Section 340 Cr.P.C. the Petitioner’s prayer was
for the prosecution of the investigating officer and of other persons who
had filed the challan (the chargesheet) against the Petitioner allegedly on
false and fabricated evidence. The learned ASJ ordered for taking up of
the application after disposal of the case on the premise that the question
whether the Petitioner who had been challaned/prosecuted on false and
fabricated evidence shall be tested at the time of final adjudication. The
Application under Section 340 Cr.P.C. was therefore held to be
premature. The Application under Section 91 of the Cr.P.C. came to be
dismissed holding “ that all the prosecution witnesses have already been
examined and it has not been pointed out as to why these documents are
required at this stage and whether these are required to be put to any
prosecution witness. Moreover, none of these documents have been
authored by any of the prosecution witnesses. These documents at best
can be used by the accused in his defence and he is at liberty to seek their
production from concerned agency which is not the prosecuting agency
and prove them as per law in his defence.”
4. The learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the order dated
04.02.2013 raises an important question of law as formulated in Crl.M.A.
Nos. 1960/2013, 3314/2013, 2058/2013 and 3312/2013 and thus a
certificate of fitness to file a Special Leave Petition may be issued to the
Petitioner. In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the
Petitioner relies on Chandra Prakash & Or. v. State of U.P. & Anr. AIR
2002 SC 1652; Gangadhar Behera & Ors. v. State of Orissa (2002) 8
SCC 381; Chapter 1, Part E of Record of Evidence in Criminal Cases;
Crl. MC 3348/2012 Etc Page 3 of 5
Virender v. The State of NCT of Delhi 2009 (4) JCC 2721; Mustakeem v.
The State of U.P., 2002 Crl.LJ 1516; Shailendra Kumar v. State of Bihar
& Ors. AIR 2002 SC 270; Madhav Hayawadanrao Hoskot v. State of
Maharashtra (1978) 3 SCC 544; Lincoln J. Wills v. Shamsul Haque &
Ors. 1974 Crl.LJ 23 (V 80 C 6); Amin & Anr. v. The State AIR 1958
Allahabad 293 (V 45 C 59); Bhanu M. Vakil v. Chandra Oshiram
Keswani & Anr. 1991 Crl.LJ 2819; V.K. Sasikala v. State Rep. by
Superintendent of Police, 2012 (4) Crimes 146; Rupe Ashok Hurra v.
Ashok Hurra & Anr., AIR 2002 SC 1771; Dilip Premnarayan Tiwari &
Anr. v. State of Maharashtra, 2010 (1) LRC 22 (SC); Babubhai v. State of
Gujarat & Ors. 2010 (4) RCR (Criminal) 311; Brady v. Mary Land 1963
(American Supreme Court); A. Venkatasubbiah Naidu v. S. Chellappan &
Ors. (2000) 7 SCC 695; Ajay Kumar v. State & Anr. 1986 Crl.LJ. 932;
Shalini Shyam Shetty v. Rajendra Shankar Patil, 2010 (3) KLT SN 86
(C.No.90) SC; S. Pratap Singh v. The State of Punjab (1964) 4 SCR 733;
Abdul Rehman Antulay & Ors. v. R.S. Nayak & Anr. (1992) 1 SCC 225;
State Bank of India & Anr. v. S.B.I. Employees Union and Ant. AIR 1987
SC 2203; Sarjubhaiya Mathurbhaiya Kahar v. Deputy Commissioner of
Police, Vadodara & Anr. 1984 Crl.L.J. 1474; Sushil Kumar Gupta v. Joy
Shanker Bhattacharyya, 1970 SCC (Cr.) 210; and Nar Singh & Anr. v.
State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1954 SC 457 (Vol. 41, CN 109).
5. I have gone through the Applications as well as the case laws cited at the
Bar. To my mind, the order dated 04.02.2013 does not raise any
important question of law so as to issue a certificate as prayed for by the
Petitioner. The authorities cited are not relevant on the issue raised in the
Applications.
Crl. MC 3348/2012 Etc Page 4 of 5
6. The Petitioner is therefore not entitled to the grant of certificate of fitness.
The Applications are accordingly dismissed.
(G.P. MITTAL)
JUDGE
MAY 09, 2013
vk
Crl. MC 3348/2012 Etc Page 5 of 5