The main legal point established in the judgment is the need for police reforms, sensitization of police personnel about citizens' rights, and stern measures against erring officials.

JUDGMENT :

A.K. Sikri, J.

This case depicts sordid state of affairs about the functioning of Police and demonstrates that much police reforms are still needed. The events that have occurred in this case which have forced the petitioners to approach this Court directly by filing instant petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India show that proper police training with emphasis on sensitising them about the rights of the citizens is required.

2. The present petition has its genesis in the incident that occurred on May 28, 2009. Rather, it goes a little earlier in point of time. The petitioners who are siblings did their MBBS course in the Santosh Medical College at Ghaziabad in Uttar Pradesh. They had certain issues with P. Mahalingam, Chairman of the Maharaji Educational Trust which has established the aforesaid medical college. In order to redress their grievances, they filed Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 33 of 2009 in this Court under Article 32 of the Constitution of India. In the said writ petition, they had complained of the harassment meted out to them by the said Chairman as well as by the police which was acting under the influence of the said Chairman. On May 13, 2009, the Court issued notice in the writ petition. An order was passed by the Registrar of this Court on May 22, 2009 directing service of dasti notice on the unserved respondents which included SHO of Police Station, Sector – 39, Noida, Gautam Budh Nagar, Uttar Pradesh who was arrayed as respondent No. 4 in the writ petition. In order to serve the notice upon the SHO, the petitioners went to the Police Station on May 28, 2009 at 10:30 am. The SHO and his subordinates started brutally assaulting the petitioners with lathis, shoes and fists and caused numerous injuries on all parts of their bodies. The petitioners got themselves examined at Lok Nayak Government Hospital, New Delhi and an x-ray of petitioner No.1 was also taken which disclosed a fracture. A plaster was put on her left hand. The petitioners made a written complaint to the Senior Superintendent of Police (SSP), Noida on May 29, 2009 itself. However, he refused to accept the complaint. Against this apathy and inaction on the part of SSP in not agreeing to register the case, the petitioners filed Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 9226 of 2009 in the aforesaid writ petition. Order was passed in this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition that the same be placed along with the main matter. It is also observed that in the meantime, the petitioners may approach the District Magistrate, Noida regarding their grievances. The petitioners approached the District Magistrate, Noida, but they were informed that he was on vacation. The City Magistrate, however, called the petitioners to his office and took the video recorded statements but did not do anything in the matter. On July 20, 2009, this Court dismissed the Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 33 of 2009 and granted liberty to the petitioners to approach the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, if so advised. Thereafter, the petitioners filed Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 23839 of 2009 in the High Court praying inter alia for a CBI inquiry into the incident which took place on May 28, 2009 when the petitioners had gone to serve dasti summons on respondent No. 4. The High Court, however, held in the impugned order that in this case, the FIR had not been registered and there was no question for considering any prayer for CBI inquiry at this stage and instead directed that the petitioners may file an application under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and in case any such application is filed, the Magistrate may pass appropriate orders thereon. With the aforesaid observations, the High Court dismissed the writ petition.

3. This order was challenged by the petitioners by filing Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 666 of 2010, which became Criminal Appeal No. 2323 of 2011 after the leave was granted in that matter. The i