Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(DEL) 807
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Neena Bansal Krishna, J
THE STATE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI – Appellant
Versus
TRISHLA JAIN – Respondent
CRL.M.C.-549/2018
Judicial restraint is essential when making observations against officials; adverse remarks must be justified and grounded in law.
Headnote:
(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 156(3) - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 302 - Disciplinary action against Police Officials - The learned Special Judge directed the registration of an FIR and recommended disciplinary action against police officials for dereliction of duty in handling a murder complaint - Observations made against police officials without giving them an opportunity to be heard - The court emphasized the need for restraint in making adverse remarks against officials unless necessary for the case - The learned ASJ's findings were based on the delay in registering the FIR and the failure to conduct a timely investigation. (Paras 1-29)
(B) Judicial Restraint - Courts should exercise caution and refrain from making unwarranted remarks against officials unless essential for the case - Observations should not besmirch the reputation of officials without proper justification. (Paras 6-10)
(C) Dereliction of Duty - The court found that the police failed to register an FIR despite clear evidence of a cognizable offense, violating established legal principles as noted in previous case law. (Paras 19-26)
(D) Final Decision - The court upheld the directions given by the learned ASJ, emphasizing the necessity of accountability for police officials. (Paras 28-29)
JUDGMENT :
NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA, J.
1. The aforesaid two Petitions have been decided together as they both emanate from the same Order dated 10.02.2016 wherein directions have been issued for initiating disciplinary action against the Police Officials, by learned Special Judge, CBI against the two Petitioners.
2. Briefly stated, Complaint Case No.54/1/2014 titled ‘Trishla Jain vs. Tavishi Chandra’ was filed by Trishla Jain which was accompanied with an Application under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (‘Cr.P.C.’ hereinafter). However, the Application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C was dismissed by the learned M.M vide Order dated 20.10.2015 against which Revision was preferred before the learned Judge, CBI, Delhi who set aside the impugned Order dated 20.10.2015 and directed the FIR to be registered and investigated by an Officer of Delhi Police not below the rank of Inspector and also sought compliance to be made within two weeks. The FIR No.216/2016 under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (‘ IPC ’ hereinafter) Police Station Sarai Rohilla was accordingly, registered.
3. It is submitted by the two Petitioners that while disposing of the Revision Petition in paragraph 24 and 25 the learned Special Judge made observations against the Senior Officers of Delhi Police including the DCP and SHO and directed the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India to take appropriate disciplinary action against them. An Action Taken Report was also sought from Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, Delhi within a period of six weeks from the date of Order.
4. The DCP, North preferred Writ Petition (Crl.) 808/2016. However, in view of the objections taken that the Writ Petition should have been filed through the State machinery, second Crl. M.C. No.549/2018 has been preferred through NCT of Delhi.
5. The impugned Order has been challenged on the ground that there existed no cogent reason for the Court to make such remarks and give directions against the Senior Police Officials/SHO in the facts of the present case. It was not appreciated that on receipt of the Complaint, proper enquiry had been conducted before arriving at the opinion that no cognizable offence was made out on the allegations made in the Complaint. The opinion of the Department was approved and endorsed by learned M.M who declined to direct registration of FIR under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. Merely because learned Sessions Judge differed from the view taken by the Authorities, cannot be a ground to pass such directions.
6. While passing such directions learned ASJ has completely ignored Delhi High Court Rules particularly Chapter 1-H, paragraph 6 of which reads as under:
“9. Observations should not be made by courts against persons and authorities, unless they are essential or necessary for decision of the case. Rare should be the occasion and necessities alone should call for its resort. Courts are temples of justice and such respect they also deserve because they do not identify themselves with the causes before them or those litigating for such causes. The parties before them and the counsel are considered to be devotees and pandits who perform the rituals respectively seeking protection of justice; parties directly and counsel on their behalf. There is no need or justification for any unwarranted besmirching of either the parties or their causes, as a matter of routine.
10. Courts are not expected to play to the gallery or for any applause from anyone or even need to take up cudgels as well against anyone, either to please their own or anyone’s fantasies. Uncalled-for observations on the professional competence or conduct of a counsel, or any person or authority or harsh or disparaging remarks are not to be made, unless absolutely required or warranted for deciding the case.”
7. The learned ASJ erred in passing adverse remarks and giving directions against Delhi Police officials without giving them an opportunity of being heard. In the
