A Delhi court has quashed an order directing lodging of an FIR against a policeman for allegedly forging the statement of a witness in a case, observing that a harsh view was taken towards him without considering his medical condition.
"The metropolitan magistrate has taken a very harsh view without taking into consideration the medical condition of the revisionist (cop) who has already undergone heart surgery on two occasions.
"He has also suffered a severe paralytic attack which has come to the notice of magistrate as he was not even able to sign the statement given by him," Additional Sessions Judge Sudesh Kumar said.
The court also noted that the Assistant Sub-Inspector(ASI) (Traffic), was a government servant at the verge of retirement and "in such severe medical conditions, was not in a position of understanding the circumstances in the manner a man of ordinary prudence would do."
"I am in consonance with the counsel for the revisionist when he contended that the revisionist at his age suffering from various ailments has very bonafidely answered all the questions put by magistrate. There could have been no reason to cheat the court," the judge said.
"Without going into the merits of the matter, taking into consideration the overall facts and circumstances, in my considered view, the order passed by metropolitan magistrate to the extent of directing registration of FIR against the revisionist was harsher and hence, same is set aside," the judge said.
The judge, however, allowed a departmental inquiry against the cop as ordered by the magisterial court.
The magistrate had issued directionstotheSHOof Saket Police Station toregisteranFIRagainsthimandalso issued directions to DCP, South East for a departmentalinquiry.
According to the case before the magistrate, the ASI was an IO in another case and had not submitted the statement of a witness under section 161 CrPC with the charge sheet and the court had given him some time trace the same.
When he submitted the statement on the next date of hearing, he stated that he had misplaced the statement earlier and had deposited it only a day before the hearing.
Accordingly,themagistrate calledfora report and consideringthecircumstancesobservedthatthe ASIhad forged thestatementof thewitness.
In his plea against the magisterial court's order, the cop had denied the allegation of forgery and contended that he had suffered severe paralyticattackand halfofhisbodywas paralysed in 2015 and he hasalready undergoneopenheart surgery.
