Back
2017 Supreme(Del) 2389
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
ASHUTOSH KUMAR, J.
Tarun Kumar (Executive Magistrate) - Petitioner
Versus
State (NCT of Delhi) - Respondent
W.P. (Crl) 3225 of 2016 & Crl. M.A. 17477 of 2016 (stay)
Decided On : 20-07-2017
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Ms. Anubha Singh
For the Respondent: Mr. Piyush Singhal, Mr. Ashish Aggarwal
Adverse comments and directions for administrative action should be made only if essential for the decision of the case, and with circumspection and caution.
Headnote:
Inquest Proceedings - Executive Magistrate - Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 - Sections 498A/306 IPC, Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 - Section 174 and 176 of the Code of Criminal Procedure
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, an Executive Magistrate, conducted inquest proceedings in connection with a case involving offences under Sections 498A/306 IPC read with Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. The Trial Court found the manner of inquest proceedings conducted by the petitioner to be improper and directed an enquiry and suitable action against the petitioner.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the Trial Court's adverse comments and direction for an enquiry and suitable action against the petitioner were unnecessary and improper. The Court expunged the observations and direction from the judgment.
Issues: The issues revolved around the manner in which the inquest proceedings were conducted by the petitioner, the Trial Court's adverse comments, and the direction for an enquiry and suitable action against the petitioner.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court emphasized that adverse comments and directions for administrative action should be made only if essential for the decision of the case. It highlighted the need for circumspection and caution in passing strictures against individuals and authorities.
Final Decision: The Court allowed the petition and expunged the adverse comments and direction for an enquiry and suitable action against the petitioner.
Ashutosh Kumar, J.
1. The petitioner, an Executive Magistrate, had conducted the inquest proceedings in connection with FIR No.390/2012 dated 26.10.2012 (P.S. Khajuri Khas) which was instituted for the offences under Sections 498A/306 IPC read with Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. The accused persons of the case were chargesheeted and were tried.
2. The petitioner appeared before the Trial Court as PW-5.
3. The Trial Court, while analyzing the deposition of witnesses in his judgment dated 05.03.2016, came to the conclusion that the manner in which inquest proceedings were conducted by the petitioner was not proper; rather peculiar and objectionable. The Trial Court, therefore, directed that a copy of the judgment to be sent to the Secretary, Department of Home, Government of NCT to evaluate and assess the conduct of the petitioner and take suitable action against him. The Trial Court also directed that the report in that regard be filed within eight weeks of the receipt of the order/judgment.
4. The petitioner, therefore, has prayed for setting aside/expunging the observations made in the judgment, commenting upon the conduct of the petitioner as an Executive Magistrate who held inquest and the direction of learned Trial Judge to the Secretary, Department of Home, Government of NCT to conduct an enquiry and take suitable action against the petitioner.
5. The petitioner, it has been argued, was posted as an Executive Magistrate, Seemapuri, Shahdara and was additionally looking after Seelampur division. He received information on 27.10.2016 about a lady having suffered burn injuries for which she was being treated at Safdarjung Hospital. A request was made to the petitioner by the police to come to Safdarjung Hospital. It has been submitted that pursuant to the aforesaid request, the petitioner reached Safdarjung Hospital at 1 pm where and when he was informed that the victim had died. At that time, the body of the deceased was being shifted to the mortuary for post mortem. It was then that the petitioner recorded the statement of the father of the deceased which was written down by a police officer, on his direction. The statement of the father of the deceased was read over to him, who thereafter put his thumb impression on the same. After this, the statement of one Amrita, sister of the deceased was also recorded in the same manner. The statement of mother of the deceased was also recorded which was taken down by her daughter in the presence of the petitioner and the statement, after being explained to her, was signed by her as well. All these statements were counter-signed by the petitioner. The petitioner, then, handed over those statements to the IO of the case to be handed over to the SHO of the concerned police station for the sequel action. On 27.10.2012, the petitioner also went to the Safdarjung hospital mortuary and completed the inquest proceedings. Inquest report was prepared on which the petitioner made his endorsement. Thereafter, the case was investigated and the accused persons were sent up for trial.
6. The petitioner, it has been submitted, appeared before the learned Trial Court on summons and gave his deposition as PW-5.
7. The Trial Court acquitted the accused persons on the ground that though the PWs.1, 3 & 4 namely Lokender Singh, father of the deceased; Amrita, sister of the deceased and Smt. Bela Devi, mother of the deceased, respectively, stated about the cause of death of the deceased to be the dowry demand by all the accused persons and harassment of the deceased but failed to prove the aforesaid charges. The Trial Court also took note of the fact that the deceased had denied any harassment to her. Her last statement was recorded by PW-6, SI Balbir Singh, in the hospital in presence of one Dr. Sanjay. However, while analyzing the statements of aforesaid PWs namely PWs.1, 3 & 4 and PW-7 namely Rohin who is the son of the deceased, the Trial Court found that the aforesaid PWs categorica
