Back
2018 Supreme(Del) 116
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
GITA MITTAL, C. HARI SHANKAR, JJ.
Monalisa Kosaria - Petitioner
Versus
Ministry of Women & Child Development & Ors. - Respondents
W.P.(C) 4037 of 2018
Decided On : 23-04-2018
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Petitioner in person
For the Respondents: Ms. Monika Arora, Mr. Gaurav Rohilla, Mr. Gautam Narayan, Ms. Mahamaya Chatterjee
The need for well-equipped, qualified personnel to address cyber crimes and the importance of taking appropriate legal action for specific complaints of non-action by the police
Headnote:
Cyber Crimes - Grievance against Delhi Police's handling of cyber crime complaints - Standing Orders No. 442/2016, 448/2017, and 451/2017 - Summary of the standing orders and measures taken by Delhi Police to address cyber crimes
Fact of the Case:
The writ petition raised concerns about the Delhi Police's handling of cyber crime complaints, particularly the delayed reaction to such complaints.
Finding of the Court:
The court noted that the Delhi Police had taken measures to address cyber crimes, including the issuance of standing orders and the training of police personnel. The court found that the issues raised in the petition had been substantially addressed by the Delhi Police and disposed of the petition accordingly.
Issues: Grievance against the delayed reaction of the police to cyber crime complaints
Ratio Decidendi: The Delhi Police had designated authorities for examining and investigating cyber crime complaints and had notified standard operating procedures. The court emphasized the need for qualified personnel to monitor, prevent, and investigate cyber crimes.
Final Decision: The writ petition was disposed of, and the petitioner was advised to take appropriate legal action if there were specific complaints of non-action by the Delhi Police.
Gita Mittal, J.
1. This writ petition makes a grievance against the manner in which the Delhi Police solved complaints of cyber crimes against women and seeks issuance of a writ of mandamus to the Delhi Police with regard to registration of FIRs, the investigation into the crimes and collection of evidence. Primarily, the petitioner is aggrieved with regard to the delayed reaction of the police upon receipt of such complaints.
2. Appearing on advance notice, Mr. Gautam Narayan, learned ASC for the Govt. of NCT of Delhi has drawn our attention to the orders dated 25th October, 2017 and 20th December, 2017 passed in W.P.(Crl.) 1006/2015 Pooja Khetan v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi wherein a similar grievance had been expressed. For expediency, we extract the two orders hereafter :
Order dated 25th October, 2017
“Mr. Rahul Mehra, the learned Senior Standing Counsel (Criminal) appearing on behalf of the GNCTD, states upon instructions that pursuant to this Court’s earlier orders, the Delhi Police has notified a Standing Order No. 442 of 2016, which has superseded the previous Standing Order No.333 of 2008 pertaining to the cyber crimes. The procedure prescribed in the instant Standing Order is detailed and envisages the creation of Cyber Cells at the Police Station as well as the District level. According to the learned counsel, each Police Station is supposed to have a Cyber Team comprising two Sub-Inspectors, two subordinate staff of Head Constable/Constable level and an Inspector, one member of the Cyber Team is to be a lady officer.
At the District level, the Cyber Team is under the overall supervision of ACP (Operations) who would have the assistance of other senior personnel.
Mr. Mehra further submits that pursuant to the aforesaid Standing Order, 1058 police personnel have undergone training by the Cyber Cell/Economic Offences Wing. These trained personnel comprise 183 Inspectors, 815 Sub-Inspectors, 10 Assistant Sub-Inspectors, 13 Head Constables and 37 Constables. He emphasises that all these officers are currently in the employment of Delhi Police and are attached to its Cyber Crime Team in some capacity or the other. He further submits that regular training is being imparted to several batches of officers. Each bath has 150 officers.
According to another Standing Order No.448 of 2017, upon registration of an FIR, the Investigating Officer is to identify all CCTV cameras in and around the relevant spot of occurrence, without any avoidable delay.
In the circumstances of the present case, the DCP (Legal), PHQ, is accordingly directed to submit details of all the steps taken towards the collection of CCTV System Hard Disks (not later than 48 hours) from the registration of an FIR in compliance of the aforesaid Standing Order. He shall also furnish details regarding the replacement of the seized Hard Disks/Storage Machines with device of same or similar specifications, from where they had been seized so that there is an uninterrupted operation of the CCTV System.
Another Standing Order No. 451 of 2017 directs the use of Call Detail Records (CDRs) analysis in investigation of cases. The Investigating Officer is supposed to collect the user data for investigation in criminal cases. The analysis of CDRs is detailed in point 5 of said Standing Order covering the Caller No./Called No., IMEI, IMSI, Date & Time, Duration, Type of Call, Cell ID, CAF or Subscriber Data.
To assess the extent of operation and adherence to Standing Order 451/2017, the DCP of each District shall furnish, before the next date of hearing, data regarding requests for CDR analysis made by the police in all cases under their jurisdiction, to the DCP (Legal), PHQ, within four weeks from today, who in turn shall file an affidavit detailing the total number of CDR analysis undertaken by the Delhi Police during investigation since the inception of the aforesaid Standing Order.
Mr. Mehra submits that the Crime Mobile Team, whose mandate is to reach the scene of crime as s
