Delhi court sets aside framing of charges in view of faulty investigation, sends order to commissioner for action
The Court said that the investigation conducted by the Investigation Officer (IO) in the present case is apparently faulty and the concerned SHO as well as the concerned ACP who have forwarded the chargesheet have failed to discharge their supervisory duties while forwarding the chargesheet to the Court of learned Magistrate for trial.
New Delhi [India] November 10 (ANI): A Delhi court while setting aside an order of framing charges in view of faulty investigation, asked the Commissioner of Police, Delhi to take action against the SHO and ACP for supervisory lapses on their part.
The Court said, “The investigation conducted by the Investigation Officer (IO) in the present case is apparently faulty and the concerned SHO, as well as the concerned ACP who have forwarded the charge sheet, have failed to discharge their supervisory duties while forwarding the charge sheet to the Court of learned Magistrate for trial.”
“Interestingly the IO did not bother to collect the copy of rent agreement form the owner Krishan Kumar and he conveniently believed the version of the owner of the property and charge-sheeted the accused,” the court noted.
“The IO also did not collect any evidence to show that the revisionist/accused Vipin Goel was doing the hardware business as alleged in the property where the fire incident took place,” the court further noted.
Considering the above-said facts and circumstances, the order of 30.03.2022 of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate (MM) is hereby set aside. The learned MM may look into the aspect of further investigation in this case in view of the above-said observation, the Additional Sessions Judge Manish Khurana said.
The court directed Copy to send the copy of order to the Commissioner of Police, Delhi for appropriate action against the concerned SHO and ACP for supervisory lapse on their part.
The court passed the above order on the plea of Vipin Goel against the order of framing of charges passed by the metropolitan magistrate on March 3, 2022.
The court observed, ” The mere fact of non-availability of fire extinguishers which are supposed to be used after the occurrence of fire does not connect the negligent act of the revisionist/accused and the cause due to which the fire occurred in the premises in question.”
“None of the witnesses examined by the IO has disclosed the cause of fire in the premises in question. Even there is no evidence on record to show that there was any combustible material stored or lying in the premises in question,” the court further observed.
It is further pertinent to mention that the revisionist/accused has been charge-sheeted for the offence u/s 285/336 IPC for being negligent with respect to fire or combustible material and for his rash and negligent act
to endanger human life and the personal safety of others, the court said in the order of November 4, 2022.
However, the entire charge sheet is silent regarding the alleged negligent conduct of the revisionist/accused and the cause of the fire, the court added.
The brief facts of the present petition that on December 12, 2019, at about 08.00 am fire occurred at the back side in the basement of the premises in Udyog Nagar, Peeragarhi.
An FIR at police station Paschim Vihar West was registered upon the complaint of ASI Rajender wherein revisionist Vipin Goel and his father Suresh Goel were named as accused.
It was alleged in the said FIR that the revisionist and his father have kept various combustible goods in huge quantity and they have not installed any fire extinguishers in the aforesaid godown and after registration of FIR, the investigation was conducted and the charge sheet was filed against accused/revisionist Vipin Geol herein under sections 285/336 of IPC.
The notice under sections 285/336 of IPC was framed against the accused Vipin Goel. (ANI)
