Gurgaon: Jitender Chaudhary embarked on his quest to locate the vehicle that struck his son and fled the scene in June 2015. His search finally came to an end last week as the police filed a chargesheet against the owner of the vehicle, Gyan Chand. “We have reopened the probe on the court’s directions and will abide by its orders,” said an officer as per a Times Of India report.
Chaudhary’s search began at the accident site near Railway Vihar in Sector 57, where the Wazirabad-based businessman discovered a damaged side-mirror and a metal component, likely from the rear of the offending vehicle. Jitender consulted various car workshops and service centres near the accident scene, hoping to find a clue about the car responsible for the accident. Unfortunately, this initial effort yielded no concrete leads, except for a mechanic’s insight that the side mirror belonged to a Maruti Suzuki Swift VDi.
Determined to seek justice, Chaudhary reached out to Maruti for assistance. After several months of persistent follow-ups, he managed to uncover the car’s registration number by deciphering the batch number printed on the mirror’s rear. He promptly handed over the car parts, including the registration number (which was not mentioned in the FIR), to the investigating officer later that year.
However, despite his best efforts, the investigation seemed to stagnate. Frustrated by the lack of progress, in January 2016, he took his case to a local court, filing a petition under Section 156(3) of the CrPC, which allows a magistrate to order an investigation of an offence. The court’s judicial magistrate first class (JMIC), Aakriti Verma, sought a status report from the investigating officer. In April, the police submitted a report claiming that the accused was “untraced,” but Jitender received no information about it. The report was accepted by the court in July.
Not one to back down, Jitender returned to the court in April 2018, this time invoking Section 173(8) of the CrPC, which deals with the inclusion of additional evidence in a trial. Unfortunately, his plea was dismissed three months later by JMIC Verma, who reasoned that it amounted to a review of the court’s previous order. Despite this, she suggested that Jitender could approach the SHO of the police station for a re-investigation.
Dissatisfied with this outcome, Jitender challenged the order and filed a petition in the sessions court, but his plea was once again denied. The onset of the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020 further jeopardise his pursuit of justice. Nonetheless, Jitender remained undeterred. In January 2023, he returned to court, this time seeking action against the vehicle’s owner responsible for his son’s accident.
After scrutinising the case and the police report, JMIC Vikrant noted that accepting the “untraced” report without notifying the complainant was irregular. The court asserted that accepting the report did not limit its authority to issue further directives if warranted by the unique circumstances of the case. The court emphasised the need for further investigation in light of the evidence presented to the investigating officer by the complainant.
The court observed that the complainant had lost faith in the police administration, leading him to seek legal recourse. It emphasised the duty of the court to restore a citizen’s trust in the police administration and ordered the police to re-investigate the case.
Despite the court’s clear directive, the investigation was not carried out as expected. The police explained in August that the investigating officer was unavailable as he had travelled to Uttarakhand. The court, however, reprimanded the Sector 56 police station, highlighting their deliberate failure to conduct a thorough investigation in the first place, which resulted in the destruction of crucial evidence.
The court directed a departmental inquiry against the police officers involved, stating that the police’s negligent approach was evident and that the omission was intentional, potentially to destroy evidence.