Application U/s 190 R/W 200 CR.P.C

IN THE HON’BLE COURT METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,
KARKARDOOMA COURTS DELHI
Misc. application___/2018
In the matter of:
State …Complainant
Versus
Unknown …Respondents
FIR No. ED-FB-000347

U/s 379 IPC, 1860
PS FARSH BAZAR
APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 190 R/w 200 OF THE CODE OF

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 FOR TAKING COGNIZANCE AND
ENQUIRING IN FIR NO. ED-FB-000347, UNDER SECTION 379
I.P.C, PS FARSH BAZAR, DELHI FOR AND ON BEHALF OF
COMPLAINANT.
MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:
1. That in a nutshell, an electric meter bearing CA No.

100697994 (hereinafter as ‘electric meter’ for the sake brevity)
was installed at rented premises (i.e. shop) part of property
bearing No. 31/A Bhikam Singh Colony, Delhi; On 15 th
September 2017, ‘electric meter’ was stolen from such rented
premises and as per the version given by the tenant who was
in possession of such rented premises at that point of time
namely Sunil Soni is that such electric meter was removed by
officials of BSES because of outstanding amount/due bill. On
the same day, Complainant visited the office of BSES and
enquired whereabouts and why electric meter was removed as
complainant had already handed over a Cheque bearing no.
208829 of Janta Bank to the official of BSES namely Rahul on
14th September 2018 itself, whereupon complainant came to
know that on the said i.e. 15th September 2017 nobody from
the BSES had visited complainant’s owned rented premises, no
aforesaid meter was removed by BSES and they are not having
any relation in whatsoever manner with the removing of
electric meter hence complainant lodged above F.I.R.
2. That the above mentioned FIR was registered at Police Station

Farsh Bazar on 15.09.2017 annexed herewith Annexure-A.
3. That the above mentioned receiving of bill by BSES official

Rahul duly acknowledged by him dt.14.09.2017. Copy of
receiving/acknowledgment of cheque annexed herewith
Annexure B.
4. That it is relevant to give in your in notice that the Cheque

which was handed over and received by BSES official bearing
no.208829 of Janta Bank was returned to the complainant on
the pretext that “as per the norms of BSES complainant need
to clear/pay the same bill through demand draft” and the
same factum is reflected in a letter given to Commercial Officer
of BSES for settling/rectification of such electric bill. Copy of
letter dt.28th December 2017 bearing Diary No. 1982 to
Commercial Officer annexed herewith Annexure C.
5. That it is pertinent to give in your notice that investigating

officer i.e. Ved Prakash (Assistant Sub- Inspector) in the
present case has been found to have not performed the role in
the manner it was expected to do so.
6. That in November 2017, complainant given an information

letter to the police vide DD No.50B dated 22.11.2017 which
clearly mentions that the complainant is in possession of
recorded telephonic conversation between accused Sunil Soni
with his son namely Sunny Arora in which complainant’s son
is requesting him to get his stolen meter back and the same
fact was acknowledged by the accused person.
7. That such information letter also mentions that there was an

eye witness namely Mrs Shashi Gupta W/o Subhash Gupta
who runs shop in the same property/building from where the
electric meter was stolen. It is pertinent to mention here that
such eye-witness used to get electricity via ‘sub-meter’ from
such electric meter which is in question in case at hand.
Information letter dt. 21st November 2017 to SHO, PS Farsh
Bazar annexed herewith Annexure-D.
8. That the investigating officer behaved negligently and did not

conducted any investigation in any manner. In order to get the
case investigated properly complainant filed monitoring
application u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. stating above facts before this
Hon’ble Court.
9. That the investigating officer deliberately destroyed and

vandalized the case of the complainant by not taking the
statement of such eye-witness rather took the statement of
the son of such eye-witness and helped the accused by
making direct evidence into hearsay evidence.
10. That the right to fair, effective and speedy investigation is

back bone of rule of law guaranteed under Article 21 of the
Constitution of India.
11. That the investigation must be fair and effective and must
proceed in the right direction in consonance with the
ingredients of the offence. Proper and fair investigation on the
part of Investigating Officer is the back bone of rule of law. The
investigation cannot be haphazard or unmethodical.
12. That the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Hari Singh Versus State
Of UP, Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 140 of 2006. D/d.
16.6.2006 Hon’ble Supreme Court of India held that-
“ Para 4- When the information is laid with the police, but
no action in that behalf is taken, the complainant can
under Section 190 read with Section 200 of the Code lay
the complaint before the Magistrate having jurisdiction to
take cognizance of the offence and the Magistrate is
required to enquire into the complaint as provided in
Chapter XV of the Code. In case the Magistrate after
recording evidence finds a prima facie case, instead of
issuing process to the accused, he is empowered to direct
the police concerned to investigate into offence under
Chapter XII of the Code and to submit a report. If he finds
that the complaint does not disclose any offence to take
further action, he is empowered to dismiss the complaint
under Section 203 of the Code. In case he finds that the
complaint/evidence recorded prima facie discloses an
offence, he is empowered to take cognizance of the offence
and would issue process to the accused. These aspects
have been highlighted by this Court in All India Institute
of Medical Sciences Employees' Union (Reg) through
its President v. Union of India and Others, 1997(4)
RCR(Crl.) 594 : [(1996)11 SCC 582]. It was specifically
observed that a writ petition in such cases is not to be
entertained. 5. The above position was again highlighted
recently in Gangadhar Janardan Mhatre v. State of
Maharashtra, 2004(4) RCR(Crl.) 682 : 2004(3) Apex
Criminal 648 : [(2004)7 SCC 768] and in Minu Kumari
and Another v. State of Bihar and Others, 2006(3)
RCR(Criminal) 271 (SC) : [(2006)4 SCC 359].”
13. That vital information letter (Annexure-B) exposes the evidence

that petitioner had collected which convey clear intentions of
the accused persons to cheat and extort money from the
petitioner but still investigating officer acting in negligent
manner and do not bother to peel out the truth. It is pertinent
to mention here that no single attempt is being done by
the investigating officer to collect recorded conversation of
the accused till today.
14. That the petitioner has not filed any similar application in any
court of law except the present application.
PRAYER
It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that keeping in view of

the facts and circumstances as mentioned above this Hon’ble
Court, may please to conduct an enquiry regarding the same,
call for the Status report for the same, take appropriate action
against the incompetent investigating officer for deliberately
creating black holes in the investigation or any other order(s)
which this Hon’ble court may think fit and proper in the interest
of justice.
Prayed Accordingly.
Complainant
Through
Sunny Aroraa Lapa & Amit Rathore

Advocates
--------------------------------
Office Add:
Lapa Law Associates
Chamber No. D-625, Karkardooma Courts Delhi
Office Address: B-10 East Krishna Nagar, Delhi-110051
Date
Delhi
In the matter of:
Versus
AFFIDAVIT
I, Praveen Kumar Arora S/o Late Sh. Harbans Lal Arora R/o House
No.B-10 East Krishna Nagar, Delhi-110051 aged about ____ Years, do
hereby solemnly affirm and declare as under:-
1. That the deponent is the complainant in the aforesaid case/FIR

and is fully conversant with the facts and circumstances of the
case and is competent to swear this affidavit.
2. That the accompanying application under section 190 r/w200
Cr.P.C. has been drafted by my counsel on my instructions and
the same has been read over to me vernacularly which is correct
and true to my belief and knowledge.
DEPONENT
VERIFICATION
Verified at Delhi on this __ day of _______ 2018 that the contents of my

above affidavit are true to my knowledge and belief and nothing has
been concealed therefrom.
DEPONENT
In the matter of:
Versus
MEMO OF PARTIES
Praveen Kumar Arora

House No.B-10
East Krishna Nagar
Delhi-110051
Ph.9818683409 …Complainant
Versus
Complainant
Through
Sunny Aroraa Lapa & Amit Rathore

Advocates
--------------------------------
Office Add:
Lapa Law Associates
Chamber No. D-625,Karkardooma Courts Delhi
Office Address: B-10 East Krishna Nagar, Delhi-110051
Date
Delhi
In the matter of:
Versus
INDEX
S.NO Description Page No.
1. Memo of Parties
2. Application Under Section 190 R/W
200 Of The Code Of Criminal
Procedure, 1973
3. ANNEXURE-A, Copy of the FIR No.
ED-FB-000347 dt 15.09.2017.
4. ANNEXURE-B, Copy of receiving/
acknowledgment of cheque.
5. ANNEXURE-C, Copy of letter

dt.28.12. 2017 bearing Diary No. 1982
to Commercial Officer BSES.
6. ANNEXURE-D, Information letter dt.
21.11.2017 to SHO, PS Farsh
Bazar002E
7. Relevant Judgment: Hari Singh

Versus State Of UP, Writ Petition
(Criminal) No. 140 of 2006. D/d.
16.6.2006.
8. Vakalatnama
Date Complainant
Delhi Through
Counsel

Application U/s 190 R/W 200 CR.P.C

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Application U/s 190 R/W 200 CR.P.C

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Application U/s 190 R/W 200 CR.P.C

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

IN THE HON’BLE COURT METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

KARKARDOOMA COURTS DELHI

In the matter of:

FIR No. ED-FB-000347

APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 190 R/w 200 OF THE CODE OF

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:

1. That in a nutshell, an electric meter bearing CA No.

2. That the above mentioned FIR was registered at Police Station

3. That the above mentioned receiving of bill by BSES official

4. That it is relevant to give in your in notice that the Cheque

5. That it is pertinent to give in your notice that investigating

6. That in November 2017, complainant given an information

7. That such information letter also mentions that there was an

8. That the investigating officer behaved negligently and did not

9. That the investigating officer deliberately destroyed and

10. That the right to fair, effective and speedy investigation is

13. That vital information letter (Annexure-B) exposes the evidence

It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that keeping in view of

Sunny Aroraa Lapa & Amit Rathore

In the matter of:

1. That the deponent is the complainant in the aforesaid case/FIR

Verified at Delhi on this __ day of _______ 2018 that the contents of my

In the matter of:

Praveen Kumar Arora

Sunny Aroraa Lapa & Amit Rathore

In the matter of:

5. ANNEXURE-C, Copy of letter

7. Relevant Judgment: Hari Singh

You might also like

Verified at Delhi on this day of _____ 2018 that the contents of my