FIRST INFORMATION REPORT(Under Sec.1S4 Cr.P.C.)

FIR No.:

Delhi

2020

RC0502020S0007

P.S: SC-II Delhi1. District:

Year:

Date: 29/04/2020

2. Acts & Sections:

Acts Sections Remarks

Arms Act 1959 (Act 54 of 1959) 25

Arms Act 1959 (Act 54 of 1959) 3

3. Suspected offences:

(a) Occurrence of offence:

Possession of illegal fire arms

Day:

From Date:

(b) Information Received at PS:

Wednesday Time Period:

To Date:

Date:

(c) General Diary Reference:

Nadbai

28/10/2015

Entry No.:

Date:

02/2020

29/04/2020 Time: 15:15:05

4. Type of Information: Written

5. Place of Occurrence:

(a) Place of Occurrence:

(b) Direction & distance from PS:

Beat No.:

(c) Address:

Plot No.: Police Station: Nadbai, Distt- Area:Bharatpur.

City: Bharatpur Pin:

State: Rajasthan District:

(d) In case, outside the limit of this Police Station, then

Name of PS: SC-II Delhi District:

Mauja Kumher Road, Near Petrol Pump, Kasba- Nadbai, PS- Nadbai

200 KMs.

Bharatpur

Special Crimes (SC) Zone

6. Complainant / Informant:

Complainant 1

(a) Name:

(b) Father's/Husband's Name:

(c) Date/Year of Birth:

(d) Nationality:

(e) Passport:

If-p_a_ss..:..p_o_rt_N_o_.--------+-1 D_a_t_e_O_f_l_ss_u_e I_p_la_c_e_O_f_l_ss_u_e_---------1

Mr. Ramkesh Meena

INDIAN

(f) Occupation: Sub Inspector

9} Address:Plot No Area City State District PinPS - Nadbai Nadbai Rajasthan Bharatpur

7. Details of known/suspected/unknown accused with full particulars:

Accused 1Name: Mr.5uraj (A 1)

Address:House No. 21, Village- Hastpur, PS - Sasni Gate, Aligarh, Uttar Pradesh, Aligarh

Accused 2Name: Mr.Himanshu (A2)

Address:Rio - Hastpur, PS - Sansi Gate, , Aligarh, Uttar Pradesh, Aligarh

8. Reasons for delay in reporting by the complainant/informant:

9. Particulars of properties Stolen:

Item Name Age of Property Estimated Cost(in INR}

10. Total value of property stolen:

11. Inquest Report/U.D. Case No., if any:

12. First information contents:

The Case CR No.683/2015 was registered on 28/10/2015 at PS- Nadbai, District - Bharatpur, Rajasthan u/s 3/25 ofthe Arms Act on the complaint of Shri Ramkesh Meena, SI (P), PS- Nadbai against (i) Suraj, S/o Shri Suresh, Caste -Jaat, R/o - House No. 21, Village - Hastpur, PS.Sasni Gate, Aligarh, District - Aligarh, UP (ii) Himanshu @ Lakhi, S/o -Shri Puran Singh, Caste - Jaat, Rio - Hastpur, PS.Sasni Gate, Aligarh, District - Aligarh, UP for possessing one countrymade pistol (Katta 315 bore) and two live rounds of 315 bore without license.

After completion of the investigation, a charge-sheet was filed on 24/12/2015 before the Ld. Court of ACJM, Nadbai,District- Bharatpur u/s 307, 120B IPC and section 3/25 of Arms Act against (i) Suraj, S/o Shri Suresh (ii) Himanshu @Lakhi, S/o Shri Puran Singh (iii) Rinku, S/o Shri Prempal (iv) Manoj Kumar, S/o Ranvir (v) Raju S/o Shri Nibbo (vi) Ajay,S/o Shri Jal Singh (vii) Virendra Singh, S/o Shri Sampat. Further investigation was kept open against (i) Rinku (ii)Manoj Kumar and (iii) Virendra Singh u/s 173 (8) Cr.Pf,

After completion of further investigation, a supplementary chargesheet was filed on 07/09/2019 against 03 accusedpersons namely (i) Rinku (ii) Manoj Kumar and (iii) Virendra Singh u/s 143, 149, 307, 452, 120(B), 115 IPCand section3/25 Arms Act.

Aggrieved with the investigation of Police, accused Virendra Singh filed S.B.CrI.Misc.(Petition) NO.2198/2017 in theHigh Court of Judicature for Rajasthan Bench at Jaipur for fair investigation and for seeking the matter transferringto independent agency like CID (CB). The Hon'ble High Court of Rajasthan, Bench Jaipur while disposing of thepetition on 07/02/2020 ordered that from bare perusal of the record and the proceedings conducted by the Police, itappears that the Police personnel are involved in implicating the accused. Hence, the matter is required to be sent toCBf for further investigation. The proceedings before the Court below shall remain stayed (copy of order enclosed).

The Hon'ble High Court has observed that when Sugar Singh, S/o Charan Singh who was present at the time whenFIRwas lodged and two persons were arrested, he was made witness on 28.10.2015, there is no reason why he hadnot informed the police about those two persons having come to his farm house the same day and threatened to killhim. Whereas, he gave a complaint on 29.10.2015 and brought out new allegations. The Hon'ble Court observed thatit is a glaring case where in initial FIRsection 3/25 of the Arms Act was offence and offence u/s 307 of IPCwas addedlater. As per the 10, the offences were added after consultation with the Circle officer and the Superintendent ofPolice. The Hon'ble High Court also observed that from bare perusal of the record and the proceedings conductedby the police, it appears that the police personnel are involved in implicating the accused.

In compliance of the order dated 07/02/2020 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan Bench atJaipur, a regular case is registered by re-registering the FIRNo.683/2015 dated 28.10.2015 of PS:Nadbai, DistrictBharatpur, Rajasthan by CBI against (i) Suraj, S/o Shri Suresh, Caste - Jaat, R/o - House No. 21, Village - Hastpur, PS.Sasni Gate, Aligarh, District - Aligarh, UP (ii) Himanshu @ Lakhi, S/o - Shri Puran Singh, Caste - Jaat, R/o - Hastpur,PS.Sasni Gate, Aligarh, District - Aligarh, UP for further investigation (Copy of FIRenclosed).

13. Action taken: Since the above information reveals commission of offence(s) uls as mentioned at Item No.2:(1) Registered the case and took up the investigation: Yes

OR(2) Directed

Name of 10:

Rank:

No:to take the investigation OR

(3) Refused investigation due to:

ARVIND JAITELY

INSPECTOR (SC-II Delhi)

108031

OR(4) Transfered To PS:

District:

on point Of Jurisdiction.

Attached Documents:Document Name

FIRread over to the complainant/informant, admitted to be correctly recorded an a copy given to thecomplainant/informant, free of cost.

R.O.A.C.14. Signature/Thumb Impression of

the complainant/informantName:Rank:

Signa re of 0 I er ~ I '1.f~in-charge Police StationMUHAMMAD SALIM KHAN

SUPDT. OF POLICE (SC-II Delhi)

M.S.KHAN••• r.U1police

C. .1. II. New Delhi

15. Date and time of dispatch to the Court:

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 2198/2017

Virendra Singh Son Of Shri Sampat, By Caste Jat, R/o Raisees,Police Station Nadbai, At Present Weir House Road, NadbaiDistrict Bharatpur Raj.

----Petitioner

Versus

State Of Rajasthan through P.P.

~\ 1 I~S ~Connected With

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 64/2016

",-1- in" S.B.Criminal Misc. Petition No.5948/2015

----Respondent

Manoj 5/0 Shri Raghveer R/o Village Kawai, Tehsil Nadbai PoliceStation Nadbai District Bharatpur, Raj.

----Petitioner

----Respondent

S.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 280/2016

Virendra Singh 5/0 Shri Sampat,' by caste Jat, aged about 50years, R/o Raisees, Police Station Nadbai, at present Weir House

, •.. .Road, Nadbai District Bharatpur, Raj.

----Petitioner

Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan through Secretary of Home Affairs,Government of Rajasthan Secretariat, Jaipur.2. Director General of Police, Government of Rajasthan, PoliceHeadquarters.3. Superintendent of Police District Bharatpur.4. Rahul Prakash the then Superintendent of Police, DistrictBharatpur, at present working as Superintendent of Police,District Alwar.5. SHO, Police Station Nadbai, District Bharatpur.6. Rajendra Chauhan SHO, Police Station Nadbai, DistrictBharatpur,~ r'\ 1 A __ !_.L __ .L r'\_I: __ T. .L __ r'\_'! __ r"".L_.L! __ "I_-IL_!

O. .:>UYdr ':>IrIYrl .:>/U ':>rHl Lrldrdrl ':>J[]Yrl K/U vuiaqe i.unasa, iensu

and Police Station Nadbai, District Bharatpur, Raj.

----Respondent

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 2548/2016

Veerendra Singh 5/0 Sampat, by caste Jat, R/o Raisis, PoliceStation Nadbai, District Bharatpur at present Ware House Road,Nadbai, District Bharatpur.

----Petitioner

----Respondent

jI

For Petitioner(s) Mr. Anll UprnanMr. Karan Pal Singh, Mr. Satya PalSingh in CRL. Misc. PetitionNo.3827/2016Mr. Karan Pal Singh, Satya Pal Singh.Mr. Anil Upman in Crl. Mise. PetitionNo.3827/2016Mr. F.R. Meena, PP.

For Complainant(s)

For State

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ BHANDARI

Order

07/02/2020

1. Petitioners have preferred various misc. petitions and writ

petition aggrieved by the proceedings taking place in pursuance of

Bharatpur.

2. In Criminal Misc. Petition No.2198/2017, prayer made by the

petitioner is for fair investigation and for seeking the matter

transferring the matter to independent agency like CID (CB).

3. In Criminal Misc. Application No.64/2016, applicant has

prayed that appropriate action be taken against Superintendent of

Police as well as Investigating Officer in FIR No.683/2015,

registered at Police Station Nadbai, District Bharatpur.

4. In Criminal Writ Petition No.280/2016, petitioner has prayed

that the disciplinary action be initiated against respondent NosA,

6 & 7 for opening history sheet against him.

5. Petitioner has preferred Criminal Misc. Petition No.2548/2016

seeking quashing of investigation qua the petitioner in FIR

No.683/2015, registered at Police Station Nadbai, District

Bharatpur.

6. In Criminal Misc. Petition No.3827/20 16, petitioner has

prayed for fair, proper and impartial investigation.

7. It is contended by counsel for the accused-Virendra Singh

that on 28.10.2015 at 02.20 pm, two persons Suraj @ Suresh and

Himanshu @ Lakhi were arrested by the police and from their

possession, a country made pistol 315 bore was recovered. FIR

was lodged by Ramkesh Meena, S.I. In the FIR, itself Sugar Singh

S/o Charan Singh was made a witness of the recovery memo and

Sugar Singh signed the recovery memo.

8. It is contended that police thereafter in connivance with

Sugar Singh obtained an application in the same FIR wherein

allegation was made by Sugar Singh that six persons armed with

mentioned that they were looking for him and they also stated

that they have been sent by Virendra Singh and Mukut Bihari @

Bhalla. On the basis of this application, the police proceeded to

register the case under Section 307 of IPC. Thereafter, police

registered case against Virendra Singh for offence under Section

302/115 of IPC. It is contended that a complaint was made to the

CIO (CB) and CIO (CB) has scrutinized the case and has submitted

preliminary report to the Investigating Officer from which it is

revealed that the entire FIR and the investigation done thereupon

by the police is concocted.

9. Counsel appearing for Virendra Singh and Manoj contends

that police has filed charge-sheet but since from perusal of the FIR

and the proceedings conducted by the police, it is revealed that a.....•

concocted false case has been made up by the police in

connivance with Sugar Singh and the police personnel including

Superintendent of Police is involved in the case, hence, the matterI

should be sent to CIO (CB) for due investigation ....•.

10. It is also contended that the Investigating Officer submitted

before the Court on 29.04.2016 that the offence under Sections

302/115 of IPC read with Section 120-8 of IPC has been added,

after consultation with concerned Circle Officer and

Superintendent of Police, Bharatpur. It is argued that on this

account, senior Police Officers are involved in the present case. It

is contended that petitioner had challenged the order of opening

history sheet and the opening of history sheet was quashed by the

High Court.

"Rubabbuddin Sheikh vs. State of Gujarat & Ors. 2010 Cr.

L.R. (SC) 202. "

12. Learned Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State

contends that police has filed charge-sheet against some of the

accused and the matter was kept pending under Section 173(8) of

Cr.P.C. against Virendra Singh and Rinku. It is informed that police

has investigated on the points pointed out by CID (CS).~ -

13. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of 'Sugar Singh/

contends that on 28.10.2015 itself he intimated the police about

the incident, which took place at his marriage garden. It is

contended that police was in collusion with the accused and did

not enter the complaint on 28.10.2015 and enter it on the next

date i.e. 29.10.2015 in FIR No.683/2015.

14. I have considered the contentions and have perused the FIR

No.683/2015.

15. Sugar Singh was a witness in the arrest memo of Himanshu

and Suraj. As per his cornplalnt given to the police, which as per-'

the police record was received on 29.10.2015, he has alleged thatI ' ~

six persons came to his marriage garden and they told that they

have been sent by Virendra Singh 5/0 Sampat B/c Jat, Rio Raisis,

Raju 5/0 Nibbo B/c Jat, Rio Nadbai, Manoj 5/0 Ranveer Sic Jat,

Rio Kabai and Mukut Sihari 5/0 Mansingh B/c Jat, Rio Raisis. The

persons, who had come to his marriage garden were talking

amongst themselves that if they do not put an end to the life of

Sugar Singh, above persons would kill them. In preliminary

inquiry report CID (CS) has pointed out if Sugar Singh was

present at the time when present FIR was lodged and two persons

the same day.

16. It is also pointed out in the preliminary inquiry that police

had added Section 307/120-B of IPC in the case diary at Para-6,

whereas the report of the Sugar Singh was shown as received in

Para-12 which as per the CBI points out the involvement of the

Investigating Officer in the case. From the preliminary inquiry, it is

also revealed that fake recovery was made. It is a glaring case

where in initial FIR under Section 3/25 of the Arms Act was

offence under Section 307 of IPC was added and later offence

under Section 302/115 of IPC was added by the Police Authorities.

As per the Investigating Officer, the offences were added after

consultation with the Circle Officer and the Superintendent of

Police.

17. It is indeed strange that when Sugar Singh was present at

the time when two persons were arrested and he was the

attesting witness to the arrest memo, why he did not lodge the

FIR at the same time and why he did not mention it to the police

that those two persons had came to his marriage garden and

threatened to kill him. It is only on the next date that he made up

a story. The story appears to be made by for the very reason that

the conversation which took place between persons who came not

only mentioned the name of four persons but thereafter

mentioned their father's name, their caste and their residence

which no sensible person would do at the time when they have

came for a particular purpose.

18. In the present case though there is a dispute that charge-

sheet has been filed against Virendra Singh but even otherwise

charge-sheet although is restricted but in view of the Judgment of

Rubabbuddin Sheikh vs. State of Gujarat & Ors. (Supra), as

also the fact that from bare perusal of the record and the

proceedings conducted by the police, it appears that the police

personnel are involved in implicating the accused. Hence, the

matter is required to be sent to CBI for further investigation.,"f' -

19. Accordingly, the petitions are disposed off with a direction to" ,

\,..the Police Authorities of the State to handover the records of the',-', ~ .case to th CBI Authorities within thirty days from date of receipt

r \ •.~ ,-. Iii"

of this order and thereafter CBI Authorities shall take up the

investigation and complete the same expeditiously. The'~~ r ,

"<, , y

proceedings before the Court below-shall remain stayed.

20. Stay apPlicatio~;~n~' d;s;~~ed~'~~ r ' •

21.,

..• " -

Petltloner-Vlrendrat Slndh Isfree to tile representation before"'''' r

f ,r,D.G.P. against alleged actio.Dlof the Officers in opening of

!the

history sheet against hirn.,.

CHANDAN /3-7