Back
Stays FIR Direction, Asks if Special Judge Should Transmit Section 175(3) Plea
A Procedural Puzzle
The has stepped in to an order directing the registration of an FIR against a group of police officers, while framing a crucial question of criminal procedure: When a Special Judge under a statute like the concludes that no offence under that special law is made out, should an application under be transmitted to the ?
Justice Girish Kathpalia, hearing two connected , stayed the of the and listed the matter for detailed hearing on .
The Incident and the Complaint
According to the police officers—petitioners in the case—a team comprising personnel from Delhi and Faridabad, including women constables, went to the residence of a woman in Badarpur, Delhi, to apprehend her son, who was allegedly involved in several criminal cases. The petitioners claimed that the woman resisted the arrest and threatened to implicate them in false POCSO cases through complaints by her granddaughters. They stated that the entire proceedings were video recorded, but the son could not be found. The woman was subsequently taken to and later to for questioning.
The woman, in turn, filed an application under before the , seeking registration of an FIR against the police officers. The Special Judge allowed the application, directing the concerned DCP to register an FIR under the relevant provisions of the .
The Legal Tussle
The petitioners argued that in paragraph 47 of the , the Special Judge had recorded a finding, after perusing CCTV footage and video recordings, that no offence under the was made out. They contended that once such a finding was reached, the application under ought to have been transmitted to the concerned Magistrate, rather than being decided by the Special Judge.
The counsel for the woman countered that the finding was only and did not bar the local police from registering an FIR if material existed. They argued that Section 175(3) read with and mandates registration of an FIR without any where a is disclosed. The State supported the petitioners.
The Court's Intervention
Justice Kathpalia noted that the of the specifically directed registration under the BNS, not under the . This sharpened the issue. The court observed:
"That being so, the question to be deliberated upon is as to whether in a case where the Special Judge under any statute arrives at a finding that no offence under the said statute is made out, they should transmit the application under to the or not."
The court found that the question required detailed argument and, given the late hour and heavy board, stayed the operation of the until the next date. It also directed that the digitized record of the be requisitioned and that the Station House Officers of the two police stations file their complete records.
What Lies Ahead
The court has reserved the core procedural question for detailed hearing on December 18. The decides nothing on the underlying facts—the competing accounts of the incident remain untested. The outcome will determine how FIR-registration applications are routed whenever a special court concludes that its own statute does not apply.
