Swapnil Raj v. State

ORDER t4.tr.20ll Crl. M.A. No. 177L5120L1 (Exemption) Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. W.P. (Crl.) 1540/2011 & Crl. M.A. No. 1771412011 (Stav) By this petition the Petitioner seeks quashing of the notice dated 3l't October, 20II issued by the Investigating Officer under Sections 16019I Cr.P.C. to the Petitioner. The contention of the learned counsel for the Petitioner is that the notice is actuated by malafide as the Petitioner had sent all the istridhan to the police station which the Cornplainant refused to accept. The police w.P.(cRL) 1s40/2011 Poge I of 3 ,/ qfficer delivered a notice aI home of the Petitioner. The officer did not maks any attempt to interrogate him at horne and instead called him to the police station for interrogation. Learned Additional Standing Counsel points out that FIR No. 22412011, has already been registered at PS Farsh Bazar, Delhi against the Petitioner and approval of arest has been granted by the competent authority for the arrest of the Petitioner. He states when seven days notice was given to the Petitioner, the Petitioner did not accept it. Ultirnately the notice was sent on 8th Novernber. 2011. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. In the present pctition initially the Petitioner filed a petition seeking protection when the FIR had been registered against the Petitioner. However, at that stage since no approval for arrest had been granted by the competent authority, this court disposed of the petition with the direction to the Respondents to serve a seven days notice prior to the arrest of the Petitioner as and when the approval is granted. It may be noted that during investigations notices were sent to the Petitioner though he initially joined thereafter he has come up for quashing of the present notice. This courl in the present petition will not monitor the investigation W.P.(CRL) 1s40/2011 ,. I and take a decision whether the Petitioner is required for any further investigation or not. How the investigation has to be canied out is in the dornain of the investigating agency. Merely because the notice was delivered at the home of the Petitioner and at that stage no investigation was car:ried out instead he was called to the police station, this Court cannot come to the conclusion that the notice was effectuated by malafide. I find no merit in the present petition. Petition and application are dismissed. NOVEMBER 14,2011 tvnt Wft-rL-MUKTA GUPTA. J. w.P.(cRL) 1s40/2011

tl s4#s- * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELIII AT NEW DELHI + w.P.(cRL) rs40/20r1 SWAPNIL RAJ S'TATE ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Lalit I(umar Jha, Advocate. VETSUS ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Saleem Ahmed, Additional Standing Counsel with SI Ruj Pal Sharma. PS Farsh Bazar. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA