c $-39 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI CRL.M.C. 3879/2010 DHARAMBIRSINGH Petitioner Through: Mr. SC Sagar, Advocate versus STATE NCTOF DELHI Respondent Through:Mr. SunilSharma,APP for State CORAM: JUSTICE SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA ORDER % 15.12.2010 This petition has been preferredby the investigatingofficer in a case FIR No.55 of 2007 dated 19'*^ January2007 underSections302/427IPG policestation Dabri seeking quashing/ setting aside of directions given by learned Sessions Judge who conducted the trial. In para 39 of the judgment/order dated 30 October2010. Paras 38 and 39 ofthe judgmentreads as under; "38. With utmost regret, it has to be said that the investigatior)in this case was not only sham and farcical, but mere namesake. In fact, I may go furtherin saying that there w/as no investigationat all done in the case. The investigating officer collude with the prime suspect Ramesh Chaudharyand fabricatedthe documentsin the police station with a predeterminedobject i.e. to save Ramesh Chaudhary from being implicatedin this case. Such conductof the 10 amountsto failure in dischargeof officialduties. This kindof tendency in the police officialto collude with the culpritsin lure of money etc has become veiyrampantnowadaysandisa majorfactorforerosionof ith Signing Date:03.08.2024 17:21:43 Certify that the digital and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing. Signature Not Verified m faith of the common man in the police system. The time has come to fa/ce stern action against such police officials, who bring insult and disrespect to the whole system by their nefarious deeds. The time has come to take immediatesteps to curb the spread of this virusand make the police system trustworthy. 39. Therefore, I direct the DCP, South West to carry out fresh investigationin this case himself and submit a report to the Court within two months. A copy of this judgment be sent to the DCP South West for the said purpose. A copy of this judgment be also sent to the Commissioner of Police, Delhi, with the direction to initiate enquiryagainst the 10 of this case InspectorDharamvir Singh for not conducting the proper, fair and impartial investigationin this case. The reportofthe enquiryshallbe submitted to this Court within two months." It is argued by the counsel for the petitionerthat the learned trial court passed these directionsbecause of the reason that the secret informerwas not made as a witness. He submitsthat the police has a privilege not to make the secret informer as a witness. Aperusalof judgmentof learnedtrial courtwould show that in the opinion of trial court, investigationin this case was deliberatelymisdirectedso as to give benefitto the real culpritand to falselyimplicatethe accusedpersons.The learned trial court after observing the conduct of the investigating officer gave above directions.Thedirectionsare in the natureoffurtherinvestigationby seniorpolice officer in order to unearth the truth. I considerthat it is the duty of every court to see to it that not only the innocentis honourablyacquittedbut alsoto seethatthe real culpritsare broughtto book. Whenever a court gives directionsfor further investigation,they are not requiredto beset asideorquashedbut should be welcomedsincethecourt hasa duty to ensure that a proper and truthful investigationshould be done and if the investigatingofficer, if had acted malafidely, should be suitably punished and action should be taken against him. In my view, the trial court has acted within its jurisdiction.Ifind no reason to set aside para 39 of the judgment."J'he petitionis hereby dismissed. SHIV NARAYAN DHiNGRA.J DECEMBER 15,2010 X rd