This order disposed of a criminal petition where the petitioner sought protection from coercive action by police officers regarding alleged fraud charges. The court held that a prior order granting a notice period before arrest provided sufficient protection, thereby dismissing the current grievance.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
$~5.
HIMANSHU SHARMA
..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Amresh Kumar and Anuj Kr Ranjan, Advocates
versus
STATE OF NCT OF DELHI
..... Respondent Through: Mr R.S. Kundu, ASC with Mr. Ankit Kr Gulia, Adv. with SI Anuj Kumar, PS Mayur Vihar & SI Ranbir Singh, PS New Ashsok Nagar
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI
%
O R D E R 04.01.2017
The status report filed by the SHO PS New Ashok Nagar dated 16.12.2016 is on record. Mr. Kundu has tendered another status report prepared by the SHO PS Mayur Vihar. The same is taken on record. Copy has been supplied to counsel for the petitioner.
The grievance of the petitioner was that respondent nos.2 and 3 i.e. SHO PS New Ashok Nagar and PS Mayur Vihar should not initiate coercive action against the petitioner in respect of the FIR/complaint which may be lodged in connection with FIR No.306/2016 dated 20.05.2016 u/s 420 IPC
registered at PS New Ashok Nagar, and FIR No.266/2016 dated 06.07.2016 u/s 406/420 IPC registered at PS Mayur Vihar without giving notice/ information to the petitioner.
The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner was only serving as an employee with M/s Royal Vision having its office at Noida. The petitioner claims that he is not the beneficiary of the alleged fraud committed by the promoters of Royal Vision.
As per the status report, the said entity was involved in defrauding a large number of people by offering insurance policies to them. The petitioner admittedly was an employee and was making calls on behalf of the said entity. Mr. Kundu submits that the charge sheet already stands filed in case FIR No.266/2016.
This Court vide order dated 05.10.2016 has already directed that if fresh complaints are received making allegations of similar nature against the petitioner, he shall be given three working days prior notice before his arrest. In my view, the said order grants sufficient protection to the petitioner. The same shall continue to operate in respect of similar FIRs that may be registered on account of petitioner’s association with M/s Royal Vision.
Petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
Dasti.
VIPIN SANGHI, J
JANUARY 04, 2017 sr
HIMANSHU SHARMA
STATE OF NCT OF DELHI
VIPIN SANGHI
As recorded by the court registry
A constitutional writ petition in a criminal context, most commonly habeas corpus or a challenge to an FIR or detention order.
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
