Dismissed

Kavita Durgpal v. State of Delhi

Delhi HC8 Jan 2019W.P.(CRL)/3127/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Writ Petitioner challenged an order staying proceedings in her complaint case under Section 210 Cr.P.C. due to a pending FIR investigation. The High Court rejected the argument that Section 210 Cr.P.C. is inapplicable because the FIR was under a different section. The petition was dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed with liberty to approach the court for remedies against further adverse orders.

Kavita Durgpal Vs State of Delhi — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Delhi HC (2019)

¶1

$~30

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- W.P.(CRL) 3127/2018 & Crl.M.A.No.34013/2018

¶4

KAVITA DURGPAL ..... Petitioner Represented by: Ms.Surabhi Dhar and Ms.Tusharika Mattoo, Advocates

¶5

versus STATE OF DELHI ..... Respondent Represented by: Ms.Richa Kapoor, ASC for the State with Ms.Amita Sachdeva, Advocate for the State

¶6

CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA

¶7

O R D E R % 08.01.2019

¶8

By this petition, the petitioner challenges the order dated 1^st August, 2018 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate whereby the complaint of the petitioner, wherein two witnesses of the petitioner/ complainant had been examined was stayed as it was revealed that one FIR pursuant to the complaint of the petitioner bearing No.325/2017 has been lodged at PS R.K.Puram.

¶9

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the FIR in question was registered only under Section 304-A IPC whereas the complaint of the petitioner was for offence punishable under Section 304 IPC. She further contends that in the FIR in question, only the landlord of the premises was being proceeded with whereas the petitioner/ complainant made allegations against the two sons of the landlord also who were monitoring and looking after the premises. Thus the learned Metropolitan Magistrate could not have stayed the proceedings in the complaint case under Section 210 Cr.P.C.

¶10

It is trite law that when a first information regarding commission of a cognizable offence is registered resulting into investigation, it is the culmination of the investigation which would finally reveal what offence/ offences are made out. Thus the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that the police was only investigating under Section 304-A IPC hence Section 210 Cr.P.C. is not applicable to the complaint of the petitioner is unfounded. If during the course of investigation, the police finds that there are further offences made out or further accused involved in it they are duty bound to investigate the same and file report accordingly.

¶11

Faced with this situation, learned counsel for the petitioner states that the charge sheet now stands filed in case FIR No.325/2017 before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate which is only against the landlord and under Section 304-A IPC and thus Section 210 Cr.P.C. would not apply to the facts of the case. A perusal of Section 210 Cr.P.C. as noted above itself reveals that it is applicable when an investigation on the same cause of action is going on. Since a final report has already been filed by the investigating agency it will be for the learned Metropolitan Magistrate to form an opinion both on the final report filed by the Police and also whether the complaint case is to be proceeded with. Thus no cause of action against the order dated 1^st October, 2018 arises with the petitioner who would be at liberty to take remedies in case a further order adverse to the petitioner is passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate.

¶12

Petition is dismissed with liberty to take remedies as available in law.

¶13

MUKTA GUPTA, J.

¶14

JANUARY 08, 2019 mamta

Kavita Durgpal v. State of Delhi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kavita Durgpal v. State of Delhi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pankaj Kumar Gupta Vs Smt. Manju Gupta

Abishek Vs State (Govt of NCT of Delhi) & Ors.

Khachedu Singh Vs the State ( NCT of Delhi) & Ors.

Mr. X & Ors. Vs State

Sandeep Kumar Vs State NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Kunal Manchanda & Ors. Vs the State ( Govt of NCT Delhi) & Anr.

Purshottam Chopra Vs State

Onkar Singh Vs State of NCT of Delhi

Alpha Creations P.Ltd. Vs Directorate of Enforcement & a

Fashion Club Global Vs Directorate of Enforcement & a

Sanjay Vs the State

Suman @ Sumra & Anr. Vs State & Others

Sunil Bhatia Vs the State & Anr.

Narender @ Nanda Vs State