IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Jyoti Singh, J.
Balbir Singh Inspector - Appellant
Versus
State of NCT of Delhi & Anr. - Respondents
W.P.(Cr) 1896 of 2022 & Cr.M.A. 16448 of 2022
Decided On : 20-02-2024
JUDICIAL OVERREACH - DISCIPLINARY ACTION - [JUDICIAL OVERREACH] - [DISCIPLINARY ACTION] - [SECTION 6 of POCSO Act, 2012, Chapter I, Part H of the Delhi High Court Rules for `Practice in the Trial of Criminal Cases'] - The court expunged the remarks and set aside the direction for suspension and initiation of disciplinary action against the Petitioner, emphasizing the separation of powers and the need for judicial restraint in issuing such directions.
Fact of the Case:
The Petitioner filed a writ petition seeking expungement of remarks and direction for suspension and disciplinary action issued by the Sessions Court in a bail application hearing. The Court stayed the operation of the impugned order.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the remarks and direction for suspension and disciplinary action were unwarranted and impermissible in law, emphasizing the need for judicial restraint and the separation of powers.
Issues: The issues revolved around the scope and ambit of the powers and jurisdiction of the Court in issuing remarks and directions for suspension and disciplinary action against the Petitioner.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court emphasized the need for judicial restraint and the separation of powers, setting aside the remarks and direction for suspension and disciplinary action against the Petitioner.
Final Decision: The Court allowed the petition, expunged the remarks, and set aside the direction for suspension and initiation of disciplinary action against the Petitioner.
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. seeking expungement/deletion/quashing of remarks/strictures/observations in the impugned order dated 20.08.2022, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-01/Special Court (POCSO), South-East District, Saket Courts, New Delhi in case titled `State v. Rakesh Verma' in BAIL APPL. No.2531/2022 arising out of FIR No.316/2017 registered under Sections 363/376 IPC and Section 6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (`POCSO Act') at PS: Kalkaji.
2. Factual matrix to the extent necessary and emerging from the petition is that FIR bearing No.316/2017 was registered on 07.07.2017 under Sections 363/376 IPC read with Section 6 of POCSO Act. On 02.08.2022, an application filed by the Accused seeking bail being BAIL APPLN. No.2531/2022, was listed before the Sessions Court. Directions were issued to the State to file reply to the application and secure the presence of the Victim on the next date i.e. 20.08.2022. On the adjourned date, the application came up for hearing at 10:28 AM, however, neither Petitioner nor anyone else appeared to represent the State and the learned Sessions Court passed an order making certain observations against the Petitioner herein and directing Commissioner of Police, Delhi to suspend him and take strict disciplinary action. Few minutes later the matter was mentioned when SI Roshan Lal appeared and he apprised the Court that reply was filed and also gave explanation for non-production of the victim. The Court did not accept the justification given and passed further remarks that the SHO and IO were violating Court orders and not filing replies or producing victims etc. Relevant part of the order is as follows for ready reference:
"No reply has been filed by the IO/SHO. Neither the victim has been produced. In fact no body has appeared on behalf of SHO PS Kalkaji. It is already 10.28 a.m. considering the numerous orders passed by this court in the last almost one month, lastly orders dated 18.08.2022 passed in case FIR no. 565/16 PS Kalkaji, reflecting the conduct of SHO PS Kalkaji and absolute failure on his part to improve his conduct, repeated non complying with the orders of the court, non appearance in the court, no filing of the reply, it is a fit case where SHO PS Kalkaji shall be suspended immediately by the Commissioner of Police, Delhi and strict disciplinary action be taken against him. Let copy of present order be sent to the office of Commissioner of Police, Delhi in this regard and report be called from his office within 3 days from today.
Relist the bail application now on 27.08.2022."
Sd-
ASJ-I (POCSO) South East
Saket Courts, New Delhi/20.08.2022
10.35 a.m.
At this stage, SI Roshan Lal has appeared on behalf of the SHO PS Kalkaji. He has filed reply to the bail application however the victim has not been produced. In fact though he is filing the reply however he has stated that he was not provided with the copy of bail application. As regards non production of victim is concerned, it is stated that victim has changed her address and hence she could not be contacted. It is to be seen that notice of bail application was issued on 02.08.2022 and today is 20.08.2022, SHO and IO had almost 3 weeks time to trace the victim and produce her in the court as per mandate of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi but no sincere efforts have been made in this regard. Only lame excuses are being made which is repeatedly wasting the time of the court. The SHO and IO are repeatedly failing to file reply to the bail applications, the IOs are not appearing to seek remand of the accused persons, victim are not being produced, no replies are being filed in interim compensation applications. The SHO is flouting of the orders of the court with impunity and there is no change in his conduct. Same cannot be absolutely tolerated. Victim be produced
A.M. Mathur v. Pramod Kumar Gupta and Others
Divisional Manager, Aravali Golf Club and Another v. Chander Hass and Another
Dr. Dilip Kumar Deka and Another v. State of Assam and Another
K.H. Siraj v. High Court of Kerala
Niranjan Patnaik v. Sashibhusan Kar
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....
The judgment establishes the principle of judicial restraint and circumspection in commenting on the conduct of police officials, emphasizing the limitations of the court's jurisdiction in interferin....
The judgment emphasizes the need for judicial restraint and discipline in passing remarks against police officers and investigating agencies, highlighting the importance of exercising caution and con....
Adverse remarks – There is difference between criticising erroneous orders and criticising a Judicial Officer – First part is permissible – Second category of criticism should best be avoided – No co....
The High Court has inherent jurisdiction to expunge remarks made by itself or lower courts to secure justice, but this power is to be exercised in exceptional cases only.
Adverse judicial remarks against an Investigating Officer cannot be made without granting an opportunity for hearing, violating natural justice principles.
Importance of accurate records and compliance with SOPs in the bail process, caution against immediate disciplinary actions without ascertaining the actual facts from the Police Department.
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.