IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Kailash Gambhir, J.
Appellants: Radha
Vs.
Respondent: State
Crl. Misc. (C) No. 3494/2008
Decided On: 18.05.2011
Kailash Gambhir, J.
1. By this petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the Petitioner has approached this Court to seek directions to direct the police to register an FIR and investigate the case expeditiously.
2. The present petition was filed by the Petitioner on 3.11.2008 and the same was taken up by this Court on 5.11.2008 in the presence of the State Prosecutor. The case in hand depicts the sordid, despotic and nepotic functioning of the Delhi Police who in a most brazen, blatant and contemptuous manner have flouted and defied not only the mandate of the law as envisaged under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, but also various directions given by the Hon'ble Apex Court and the High Court pronouncing that once any information disclosing the commission of a cognizable offence is brought before the police officer of a police station, then the concerned police officer is bound to register an FIR.
3. Before I proceed to discuss the legal position and the approach of the concerned police officials including that of the rank of not less than the Additional Commissioner of Police and the Commissioner of Police, it would be apt to give a sequence of facts which compelled the Petitioner to approach this Court by invoking the inherent powers of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Petitioner happens to be an unfortunate sister of a 22 year old young boy namely Brijesh Kumar @ Birju who had gone out from his house i.e. House No. B-9/427, Sector-3, Rohini, Delhi on the evening of 05.08.2007 for some work and did not return until midnight. When Brijesh did not return till midnight, his mother went out in search of him and later on approached the local police so as to report missing of her son. The police, however, did not oblige her and the mother came back with the hope that her son Brijesh may come back home soon. On 6.8.2007, someone informed the police that the dead body of a person is lying in the park of B-9, Sector-3, Rohini. The Petitioner and her family members after having come to know about the said information reached the spot and were shocked to find the dead body of Brijesh. As per the Petitioner, she and the other family members had noticed some injuries on the head and other parts of the body of the deceased. The deceased was removed by the police to Baba Saheb Ambedkar Hospital by PCR Van bearing No. C-43 and thereafter the body was referred to the mortuary of Sanjay Gandhi Memorial Hospital for postmortem. The Petitioner and her mother visited the police station for the registration of the case but the police refused to register any case. The Petitioner then sent telegrams to various higher authorities requesting them to give directions to the concerned SHO of P.S. Rohini to register an FIR and for thorough investigation of the case. The Petitioner had also apprised the police that on 3.8.2007 a quarrel between the deceased and one Vaibhav Gautam @ Michael had taken place over some girl and the deceased was threatened by the said Michael that he would be killed. Since the police did not register any FIR, therefore, the Petitioner filed a writ petition before this Court vide W.P.(C) No. 1096/2007 to seek directions for the registration of an FIR. The High Court did not entertain the said writ petition filed by the Petitioner in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Aleque Padamsee and Ors. Union of India and Ors. (2007)6 SCC 171 and directed the Petitioner to approach the court of the Metropolitan Magistrate under Section 156(3) of Code of Criminal Procedure, instead of invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court. Pursuant to the said direction of the High Court, the Petitioner filed a complaint case before the concerned Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi on 29.8.2007, but even after the lapse of more than one year, neither the Magistrate give any direction to the police to investigate the said crime nor did the concerned po
Bhagwant Singh v. Commissioner of Police 1985 (2) SCC 537
Abhinandan Jha and Anr. v. Dinesh Mishra AIR 1968 (SC) 117
Indra Carat Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Karnataka and Ors. AIR 1989 (SC) 885
Binay Kumar Singh v. State of Bihar 1997(1) SCC 283
Parkash Singh Badal v. State of Punjab (2007) 1 SCC 1
Ramesh Kumari v. State (NCT of Delhi) and Ors. 2006 CriLJ 1622 : AIR 2006 SC 1322
Sandeep Rammilan Shukla v. The State of Maharashtra through the Secretary
Ravi Kumar v. State of Punjab (2005) 9 SCC 315
Thulia Kali v. The State of Tamil Nadu AIR 1973 SC 501
Hasib v. State of Bihar AIR 1972 SC 283
CBI and Ors. v. Tapan Kumar Singh (2003) 6 SCC 175
Ashok Kumar Todi v. Kishwar Jahan and Ors. 2011 (3) SCALE 94
H.N. Rishbud and Anr. v. State of Delhi AIR 1955 SC 196
State of M.P. v. Mubarak Ali AIR 1959 SC 707
Navinchandra N. Majithia v. State of Meghalaya and Ors. (2000) 8 SCC 323
Hemant Dhasmana v. Central Bureau of Investigation and Anr. (2001) 7 SCC 536
Lalita Kumari v. Government of U.P. and Ors. (2008) 7 SCC 164 : (2008) 14 SCC 337
Rajinder Singh Katoch v. Chandigarh Administration and Ors. (2007) 10 SCC 69
Tapinder Singh v. State of Punjab and Anr. 1970 (2) SCC 113
Satish Kumar Goel v. State and Ors. 84 (2000) DLT 199
Laxminarayan Gupta v. Commissioner of Police 130 (2006) DLT 490
Madhu Bala v. Suresh Kumar and Ors. 1997 (8) SCC 476
Mohammed Yousuf v. Afaq Jahan 2006 (1) SCC 627
Raghubir Singh v. State of Bihar AIR 1987 SC 149
Madheshwardhari Singh and Anr. v. State of Bihar AIR 1986 Pat 324
Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. Maharashtra (2011) 1 SCC 694
gpt-4
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.