IMPORTANT POINT
The duty to present correct facts before the Court and the importance of ensuring accountability to the law and compliance with established procedures and laws.

JUDGMENT

Swarana Kanta Sharma, J.

1. The instant petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (`Cr.P.C.') has been filed on behalf of petitioner seeking issuance of writ/order/directions in the nature of certiorari for quashing of the order dated 23.12.2022 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, South West, Dwarka Court, Delhi in Criminal Case No. 28372/2018 arising out of FIR bearing no. 246/2014, registered at Police Station Janakpuri, Delhi for the offence punishable under Sections 420/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (`IPC').

2. Brief facts of the present case, as disclosed in the petition, are that on 24.09.2022, the learned Trial Court was pleased to issue Non- Bailable Warrants against accused/Respondent no. 2 Anju Negi through SHO concerned for 22.10.2022. The petitioner herein, who is posted as Sub-Inspector at Police Station Janakpuri, was on long medical leave for 20 days, but due to a shortage of staff at the police station, she had joined her duty on 11.10.2022. The Non-Bailable Warrants in question were marked to the petitioner for execution on 15.10.2022 by the SHO concerned. Since the area of the residence of the accused falls within North-East District, therefore, to locate the address, the petitioner had contacted the staff of 5B unit and had requested them to locate and verify the address so that Non-Bailable Warrants issued by the learned Trial Court can be executed. Thereafter, ASI Amar Singh, of Unit 5B had told her that they were trying to locate the address of the accused which apparently was an incomplete address. Later, it was informed by Constable Amit of 5B Unit that they had located the address where the mother of the accused had met them and had told them that the accused Anju Negi had left home a few years back and had no contact with them. They had also refused to give any formal statement to that effect. On receiving such information from the staff of Unit 5B, the petitioner had prepared the report dated 22.10.2022, which was forwarded to the learned Trial Court. It is stated that inadvertently the name of the person who had visited to check/locate the address of respondent no. 2 was wrongly mentioned as Head Constable Harvinder (Staff of Beat No. 5 Janakpuri) instead of Constable Amit, Belt No. 1075/W from 5B staff. The said Constable Amit had shared the Google pin when he had visited the area of Dayal Pur to locate the address of accused Anju Negi on 21.10.2022 and the copy of the screenshot was placed before the learned Trial Court. It is stated, therefore, based on information supplied by staff of 5B unit, which was believed to be true, the petitioner had prepared a report dated 22.10.2022 of unexecuted warrants. It is stated that the mother of respondent no. 2 had deliberately avoided informing the whereabouts of the accused/respondent no.2 to Constable Amit. However, thereafter, she had informed the accused about the pendency of proceedings, and thus, on the next date of hearing which was fixed for 22.10.2022, respondent no. 2 had appeared before the learned Trial Court. On 22.10.2022, the learned Trial Court after perusing the report was pleased to issue notice against Head Constable Harvinder to appear before it. On 03.12.2022. the learned Trial Court had recorded the statement of Head Constable Harvinder wherein he had stated that he had not visited the address of respondent no. 2 and the report had been prepared by the petitioner. Thereafter, the learned Trial Court was pleased to issue notice under Section 60 of the Delhi Police Act, 1978 to Head Constable Harvinder and notice to appear was issued to the petitioner for 05.12.2022. The learned Trial Court was further pleased to cancel Non-Bailable Warrants issued to respondent no. 2 vide order dated 03.12.2022. On 05.12.2022, the petitioner herein filed an additional report, clarifying the position that Constable Amit had visited the address of respondent n