IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
JASMEET SINGH, J.
Archana Sharma – Appellant
Versus
State and Others - Respondents
W.P.(Crl) 36 of 2021 and Crl.M.A. 6615 of 2021
Decided on : 13-04-2023
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. factual basis for the writ petition. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. petitioner’s arguments against investigation. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. previous petition dismissed; res judicata. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15) |
| 4. parameters for further investigation. (Para 26 , 35 , 36 , 38) |
| 5. final dismissal of the writ petition. (Para 42 , 43) |
JUDGMENT :
Jasmeet Singh, J.
This is a writ petition-seeking transfer of further investigation of FIR No. 80/2018 registered under section 509/34 IPC at P.S. IGI Airport to Central Bureau of Investigation from Respondent No. 1. The present petition also seeks to direct the concerned agency to arrest or detain Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 for further investigation; to recommend Central Vigilance Commission and Commissioner of Police to take serious action against the police officials who neglected their duties; to impose heavy cost upon Respondent Nos. 1, 4 to 9 for contempt of Supreme Court's directions in Lalita Kumari v. State of U.P. , 2013 SCC OnLine SC 999 and to direct investigating agency to seize Petitioner's official desktop and laptop of Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 in custody of Respondent No. 10.
2. According to the petitioner, the material facts of the case are:
ii. On 19.09.2007, the Petitioner joined GMR Delhi International Airport (P) Ltd. as Coordinator and was promoted as Senior Coordinator in 2011.
iii. On 25.05.2011, an email was sent by Mr. Arun Behal, the then HoD (Operations) to the Petitioner to join Lost Property Section involving shift duties.
iv. In May 2011, the Petitioner met Respondent 2, Lalitendu Samanta, for the first time who was the Chief Human Resources Officer at M/s. GMR DIAL (Respondent No. 10), seeking transfer from Operation involving shift duties to general duty due to security and medical reasons.
v. On 09.05.2011 and 20.07.2011, the petitioner sent an email to Respondent No. 2 regarding transfer to the department headed by Ms. Kiran Jain.
vi. On 02.08.2011, the Petitioner joined the Strategy Planning Group (“SPG”) Dept headed by Respondent No. 3.
vii. The Petitioner states that from May 2011 to December 2011, Respondent No. 2 sexually harassed the petitioner by passing remarks, touching inappropriately, calling at odd hours, seeking sexual favours, stalking and forcing to meet the petitioner outside office premises, standing in objectionable and inappropriate positions behind the petitioner, misusing his power to threaten the petitioner's job, violating internal job posting policy and not providing the petitioner the transfer letter issued for SPG. viii. The Petitioner also states that during this time, the Respondent No. 3 aided Respondent No. 2 in further harassing the petitioner by vulgar gestures and expressions, threatening her job, unnecessary interference in her work, humiliating her and making unwarranted physical contact with her.
ix. On 20.12.2011, petitioner recorded the conversation between herself and respondent no. 2 in her mobile.
x. On 05.01.2012, the petitioner filed a written complaint with P.S Nair (Sector CEO, DIAL) against Respondent Nos. 2 and 3. Mr. Nair promised proper justice and persuaded the petitioner not to lodge an FIR in order to save the company's reputation.
xi. Thereafter, in February 2012 an Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) was constituted to enquire into the petitioner's comp
Bimal Gurung v. Union of India
Arnab Ranjan Goswami v. Union of India
P. Chidambaram v. Directorate of Enforcement
Sudhir Bhaskarrao Tambe v. Hemant Yashwant Dhage
State of West Bengal v. Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights, West Bengal
The court emphasized the importance of thorough examination of allegations before transferring an investigation to CBI and highlighted the petitioner's failure to register an FIR or seek remedy under....
The court affirmed that senior officials cannot obstruct FIR registration and must adhere to legal protocols, emphasizing accountability in law enforcement.
The court affirmed that a senior officer cannot avoid accountability for procedural lapses and that the transfer of investigation to the CBI is not warranted without exceptional circumstances.
A Magistrate under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. must direct the registration of an FIR when the complaint discloses a cognizable offence involving complex technical evidence that requires specialized polic....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the writ of mandamus can be declined when seeking to direct registration of FIR before exhausting the available statutory remedies under Cr.P.....
Writ petition for transfer of investigation and quashing of FIRs dismissed as registration is mandated by law; prior protection does not prevent new FIRs.
The Court emphasized the wide powers of a Magistrate under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. to order registration of an FIR, direct proper investigation, and monitor the same. It also highlighted the need for ....
The Court has inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to transfer the investigation from one agency to another, including to the CBI, if the facts so warrant, but the same should be done in some ra....
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.