IMPORTANT POINT
The judgment established the principle of judicial restraint and the separation of powers, emphasizing that the judiciary should not overstep its jurisdiction by directing disciplinary action against public servants, which falls within the domain of the disciplinary authority under the respective service rules.

JUDGMENT

Jyoti Singh, J. (Oral) - This writ petition has been filed on behalf of the Petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 Cr.P.C. assailing orders dated 30.11.2021, 21.12.2021 and 14.01.2022 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (POCSO), West District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi, in SC No. 56498/2016 as well as for quashing the inquiry initiated by Respondent No. 2.

2. Factual matrix to the extent necessary and relevant as emerging from the petition is that Petitioner joined the Delhi Police as a Constable and is stated to have served for 35 years in the department. At the relevant time, Petitioner was posted as Sub-Inspector in PS: Nihal Vihar, Delhi and was assigned investigation in case FIR No. 104/2014. Petitioner carried out the investigation and filed the Charge Sheet before the Competent Court. Genesis of the FIR was an information received in the Police Station on 22.02.2014, pursuant to which Petitioner reached Sparsh Hospital, Mianwali Nagar, Rohtak Road, Peeragarhi, New Delhi and met SI Ashish and Constable Rakesh and the victim, who was hospitalized due to consumption of some poisonous substance. Victim was taken to Sanjay Gandhi Memorial Hospital, Mangolpuri, Delhi for medical examination, where she gave a statement implicating accused Pankaj for having forcibly entered her house and committing rape on her. While narrating the incident of sexual assault, the victim informed that her age was 15 years, in the presence of her mother. After taking the consent of the victim and her mother, internal examination was carried out and blood samples and other samples from nails, swabs, genitals, clothes etc. were collected, sealed and taken into police custody.

3. Statement of the victim was thereafter recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., wherein she reiterated the allegations but stated that she did not want any action against the accused as she was assured by his relatives that the accused would marry her. Accused was arrested and medically examined. He was declared potent after a potency test and the blood samples were taken for DNA profiling etc. Upon completion of investigation, Charge Sheet was filed. FSL result opined that DNA profiles of the samples of the accused matched with DNA profiles of the samples collected from the victim, which further established sexual intercourse between them. Petitioner thereafter collected school admission register and other forms such as birth certificate issued by the Registrar, Birth & Death, West Zone, MCD, for verification of the age of the victim and it was found that on the date of the incident i.e. 22.02.2014, her age was 16 years 04 months and 29 days. Learned Sessions Court took cognizance of the offence and the trial commenced. 15 witnesses were examined by the prosecution. During the pendency of the trial, Complainant married the accused and 01 daughter and 01 son were born out of the wedlock. The Court returned a finding in the judgment that sexual intercourse between accused and victim was established, however, on account of the requirements of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection) Rules, 2007 (`Rules 2007') regarding age proof of the prosecutrix not being fulfilled, accused was acquitted. The Court was of the view that the IO i.e. Petitioner, the then SHO and ACP were responsible for not carrying out the investigation properly and taking the matter seriously, leading to acquittal of the accused for lack of required documents of victim's age proof.

4. After pronouncing the judgment on 30.11.2021 acquitting the Accused, learned Sessions Court passed a separate order on the same date observing that the Accused has been acquitted as neither the IO inquired into the document relied upon to secure admission in the school first attended by the victim as per the Scheme in Rule 12 of Rules 2007 nor the then SHO and ACP were vigilant for determination of age of the prosecutrix and forwarded the Charge Sheet in a mechanica