Delhi HC upholds disciplinary action against police officials for not registering FIR in murder case

New Delhi, March 11 The Delhi High Court has refused to interfere with an order passed by a court below recommending disciplinary action against the city’s police officials over the non-registration of an FIR in an alleged murder case.

A bench of Justice Neena Bansal Krishna was hearing a writ petition filed by the Deputy Commissioner of Police (DCP) of North District challenging the Special Judge’s direction to the Union Ministry of Home Affairs to take appropriate disciplinary action against the senior officials.

The petition contended that there was no cogent reason for the court below to make such remarks and give directions against the senior police officials/SHO in the facts of the present case. Further, the plea said that on receipt of the complaint, the proper enquiry had been conducted before arriving at the opinion that no cognisable offence was made out, and the opinion of the department was approved and endorsed by the Metropolitan Magistrate who declined to direct registration of FIR under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.

The plea contended that the Special Judge erred in passing adverse remarks and giving directions against Delhi Police officials without giving them an opportunity to be heard.

The deceased was doing the business of handicrafts in Meerut and had rented premises in Delhi. He was in a relationship with Tavishi Chandra and they used to reside together in the rented flat, as and when the deceased visited Delhi. On the day of the incident admittedly, Tavishi Chandra and the deceased were together. The next morning, Tavishi Chandra left in the morning but when she came back, she found the deceased hanging with a rope. She informed the police and said that she had cut the rope with which the deceased was hanging with the help of a knife and had brought him down.

The post-mortem report reflects as many as 14 injuries, out of which five injuries were caused by a pointed object and two injuries by a sharp object. All the injuries were stated to be antemortem. “The respondent Trishla Jain, mother of the deceased, had given a complaint on the next day itself, but the police for the reasons best known, chose not to register the FIR on the pretext that they were conducting an enquiry. [I]t is not a case where there was a preliminary inquiry required to ascertain if it was an unnatural death. The circumstances, as described above, with 14 antemortem (before death) injuries justify the immediate registration of FIR,” said the Justice Krishna-led Bench.

Clearly, it was a case where FIR should have been registered immediately on the complaint, it added. The Delhi High Court said that the revision court was not unjustified in observing that there was dereliction on the part of senior police officials and SHO/DCP of Police Station Sarai Rohilla.

“It is not as if any strictures or adverse remarks have been made, but it is an observation made in the background of the facts as already narrated. It cannot be, therefore, said that the learned ASJ failed to exercise any restraint, or his conduct was not in consonance with the High Court Rules, which discourage making of any strictures and observations against the Police Officials,” further said the Justice Krishna-led Bench.

Upholding the order of the court below, the Delhi HC directed that a compliance report of inquiry in regard to dereliction of duties by the concerned officials be submitted before the trial court within six weeks. It clarified that any enquiry which may be initiated by the Union Ministry of Home Affairs would necessarily be done in accordance with the procedures.

Disclaimer: This post has been auto-published from an agency feed without any modifications to the text and has not been reviewed by an editor