A Delhi Court has summoned the Police investigation file pursuant to an order passed by the Sessions Court in which it had said that Metropolitan Magistrate (MM) is supposed to interfere and monitor when the investigation is not carried out in a fair manner.
Metropolitan Magistrate Geeta in a recent order directed the investigation officer in a case lodged at Police station Maurice Nagar to produce the case file. Court has listed the matter for hearing on February 17, 2022.
The case pertains to an FIR lodged in Maurice Nagar Police Station, New Delhi in connection with a road accident and death of the victim Ankit therein.Padam Singh, who is the father of the deceased, had approached the sessions court against an order of trial court. He contended that the magistrate had failed to appreciate that there is ample evidence to attract the section 302 IPC for the offence of alleged murder.
Advocate Deepak Sharma, counsel for the revisionist, had argued that despite the CCTV footage and testimony of eyewitnesses the Delhi Police did not invoke the section of murder under section 302 IPC.Counsel had further argued that the Police only investigated the aspects of the road accident and death due to negligent act. Though there was a medical report supporting the claim that the son of the revisionist was beaten to death by the proposed accused persons.
The Magistrate Court while admitting the contention of the Public Prosecutor, had said that the FIR in the case in already lodged and being investigated. If the application has any doubt about the sections police has invoked, he may argue the same at the time framing of charges.
The trial court had further said the applicant can file an application if he is not satisfied with the manner the investigation is carried out.
Challenging the order of the trial court, the revisionist said his application under section 156(3) was not for the purpose of lodging of FIR. It was for invoking the section for the offence of murder of his son.
Deepak Sharma argued that cognizance is taken of the offence and not the offender. He said the application for monitoring the investigation was filed and pending before the Magistrate. He failed to appreciate all these facts.
The Session Court while deciding the revision mentioned the Supreme Court judgement in Sakiri Vasu vs State UP that Metropolitan Magistrate (MM) is supposed to interfere and monitor when the investigation is not carried out in a fair manner.
The Session Court had directed the MM that he will monitor the investigation. The revisionist is at liberty to raise the issue of invoking section 302 IPC before the IO concerned during the investigation stage if it is left. He can file a protest petition in this regard which would be decided as per law.
( With inputs from ANI )
Disclaimer: This post has been auto-published from an agency feed without any modifications to the text and has not been reviewed by an editor