RAJ KUMAR SHARMA vs SI SANDEEP SRIVASTAVA & ORS.

Judgment text excerpt

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Reserved on: 13th February, 2025 Pronounced on: 22nd May, 2025 + CRL.L.P. 191/2021 RAJ KUMAR SHARMA S/o Sh. Virender Kumar, R/o A-916, Shastri Nagar, Delhi – 110052 .....Petitioner Through: Mr. R.K. Rawat & Mr.S.M. Sharma, Advocates Versus 1. SI SANDEEP SRIVASTAVA PS: Gulabi Bagh Delhi – 110052 2. HC OM PRAKASH MEENA PS: Gulabi Bagh Delhi – 110052 3. CHANDAN TIWARI, INFORMER PS: Gulabi Bagh Delhi – 110052 4. THE SHO PS: Gulabi Bagh Delhi – 110052 5. DCP [NORTH] Office of DCP [N] PS Civil Lines, Delhi 6. COMMISSIONER OF DELHI POLICE Signature Not Verified Signed By:VIKAS CRL.L.P. 191/2021 Page 1 of 8 ARORA Signing Date:22.05.2025 21:03:44 New Police Headquarters Bldg., Jai Singh Road, New Delhi - 110001 .....Respondents Through: Mr. Sachit Sharma, Advocate for Respondent No.1 Mr.Shoaib Haider, Additional Public Prosecutor for Respondent-State with Inspector Sandeep Srivastava CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA J U D G M E N T NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA, J. 1. Petition under Section 378(4) Cr.P.C. read with Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the Petitioner against the Judgment and Order dated 01.11.2021 passed by the learned ACMM in Complaint Case No. 6711/2020, whereby his Application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. along with Complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C., have been dismissed. 2. Briefly stated, the Petitioner had filed a Complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. wherein he had claimed that he has been falsely implicated in FIR No. 56/2020, under Sections 33/38/58 of Delhi Excise Act, by Respondents No.1 and 2, the Police Officials. 3. It is claimed that the CCTV footage clearly shows the Complainant walking with the Police Officials in plain clothes thereby confirming that he was not arrested for illegal liquor in his