JUDGEMENT

JYOTI SINGH, J. (ORAL)

1. This writ petition has been filed by the Petitioner under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 Cr.P.C., seeking the following reliefs:

“a) Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction thereby quashing the remarks and directions of registering FIR against the petitioner in the impugned order dated 12.03.2019 passed by Sh. Rakesh Kumar-III, PO MACT, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in MACT Case No.780/18;

b) Call for the records of the MACT Case No.780/18;

c) Stay the operation of the Order dated 12.02.2019 for which separate Crl.

M.A has been filed:

d) Pass any further order(s) as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit.”

2. Aggrieved by the directions passed in the impugned order dated 12.03.2019, whereby the learned Presiding Officer, MACT-2 (Central), Delhi (hereinafter referred to as PO) has directed the DCP concerned to register FIR against the applicant and file a report within two weeks, present petition has been filed by the Petitioner. On 20.03.2019, Court had stayed the direction for registration of the FIR and the interim order is continuing till date.

3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner argues that Petitioner had fairly and impartially conducted the investigation and therefore, the observations and the directions in the impugned order were unwarranted. Principles of natural justice have been violated inasmuch as no opportunity was given to the Petitioner of being heard and presenting his case before passing the impugned order. Even in law, the observations and the directions cannot be sustained. The Supreme Court in Pramod Kumar Jha v. State of Bihar and Anr., CRL.A. 1092/2002, decided on 18.06.2008 and in Pandit Ishwari Prasad Misra v. Mohammad Isa, 1962 SCC OnLine SC 88, has held that if there is any lapse on the part of the Investigating Officer, Court should only record that as a fact and direct the Competent Authority to take departmental action and/or recourse to criminal proceedings by registration of an FIR, but cannot pass a direction to register the FIR.

4. Ms. Rupali Bandhopadhya, learned ASC for the State, supports the case of the Petitioner and submits that the learned PO has overstepped his jurisdiction in making observations and remarks against the Petitioner and directing the DCP concerned to register an FIR against the Petitioner and submit a report to the Court.

5. I have heard learned counsels for the parties and examined their respective contentions.

6. Before embarking on the journey to examine the contentions of the Petitioner, it would be relevant and necessary to refer to some of the relevant provisions and judicial precedents directly concerning the issue arising before this Court. The first milestone in this journey is Section 6 in Chapter I, Part H of the Delhi High Court Rules for ‘Practice in the Trial of Criminal Cases’ which reads as follows:

“6. Criticism on the conduct of Police and other officers—It is undesirable for Courts to make remarks censuring the action of police Officers unless such remarks are strictly relevant of the case. It is to be observed that the Police have great difficulties to contend with in this country, chiefly because they receive little sympathy or assistance from the people in their efforts to detect crime. Nothing can be more disheartening to them than to find that, when they have worked up a case, they are regarded with distrust by the Courts; that the smallest irregularity is magnified into a grave misconduct and that every allegation of ill-usage is readily accepted as true. That such allegations may sometimes be true it is impossible to deny but on a closer scrutiny they are generally found to be far more often false. There should not be an over-alacrity on the part of Judicial Officers to believe anything and every thing against the police; but if it be proved that the police have manufactured evidence by extorting confessions or tutoring witnesses they can hardly be too severely punished. Whenever a Magistrate