Delhi court: Magistrate should not step into investigating officer's shoes

New Delhi: A metropolitan magistrate is not supposed to step into the shoes of an investigating officer or interfere in the probe, a Delhi court has said while setting aside an order directing the police to seize case property in a criminal complaint.

The court’s decision came on an appeal by a man, who was booked under Section 409 (criminal breach of trust) of the IPC for wrongfully retaining three luxury cars owned by a company, in which he was one of the directors, for personal use.

“During the course of investigation, issuance of directions like conducting raid, arresting the accused, seizure of specific property by a magistrate would amount to interference in the exclusive sphere of investigation. It would seem that the magistrate is himself probing the matter. The manner and method of conducting investigation are left entirely to the investigating officer which should not be interfered with, unless and until necessary. A magistrate is not supposed to step into the shoes of the investigating officer,” the additional sessions judge, Sudesh Kumar, said. The judge made the remark while hearing a revision plea of accused Rishi Aggarwal, a Delhi resident, challenging the order of a court which had allowed an application seeking monitoring of probe and directed the IO to verify the ownership of cars, seize case property, and take expedient steps to secure the interest of the complainant, a co-director in the company.

“I am satisfied that the order, vide which directions have been issued by the metropolitan magistrate (MM) to the IO, to seize the vehicles in dispute and also to take expedient steps to secure interests of the complainant, is not in consonance with the scheme as postulated in the aforesaid judgments. The order hence stands set aside,” the judge said.

According to the prosecution case, complainant Mukesh Khurana had lodged a complaint against Mr Aggarwal, on whose request three luxury cars were bought in the name of their joint firm for his use and were to be returned to the company on demand.

It was alleged that the vehicles were retained by the accused for his personal use with an undertaking to compensate the firm for depreciation in the value of the cars by his use but despite repeated demands, he neither returned the cars, nor compensated the company.

The magisterial court, in its March 22, 2016 order, directed the police to lodge an FIR against Mr Aggarwal and seize the cars and other case property and take steps in interest of the complainant.