JUDGMENT :

SAURABH BANERJEE, J.

1. By virtue of the present petition(s) under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Hereinafter “Cr.P.C. read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner(s) seek setting aside of the order dated 22.02.2022, Hereinafter “impugned order alongwith all the consequential order(s)/ direction(s) pursuant thereto, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (FTSC) (POCSO)-02, Dwarka Courts, New Delhi, Hereinafter “ASJ

2. Succinctly put, the present FIR was registered on 21.06.2019 under Section 363 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, Hereinafter “IPC pursuant to the complaint made by the complainant since her minor daughter (victim) was missing from her residence. After due investigation, the victim was recovered and her medical examination was conducted, whereafter her statements under Sections 161 and 164 of the CrPC came to be recorded. Pursuant thereto, Sections 328 and 376 IPC as also Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, Hereinafter “POCSO were added in the matter.

3. It is the case of the petitioner(s) that the investigation was initially conducted by ASI Ram Lal, who undertook steps for tracing the victim immediately upon registration of the FIR, including visits to various locations, collection of relevant records and circulation of information through appropriate channels. Upon recovery of the victim, the investigation was thereafter transferred to other IO(s) from time to time. In fact, the petitioner in CRL.M.C. 5769/2022 (the then IO) and the petitioner in CRL.M.C. 1664/2024 (the then Head Constable), claim that they had discharged their duties in accordance with law during their respective tenures and substantial progress in investigation had already taken place during the period of their postings.

4. More so, during the course of investigation, one of the co-accused persons in the aforesaid FIR made an application seeking anticipatory bail before the learned ASJ, which was although disposed vide order dated 22.02.2022, however, the learned ASJ called for the Status Report qua cause/ reasons for delay of the investigation. The relevant portion of the said order reads as under:-

“… …The present FIR was registered on 21.06.2019. However, the investigation has not been completed as yet. IO SI Sapana has stated that she has been assigned this case on 31.01.2022.

Let report in writing be called from previous IO and SHO concerned as to why the investigation has not been completed in the case till date. Previous IO and SHO are directed to appear in person on the next date of hearing…

…”

[Emphasis Supplied]

5. Thereafter, the learned ASJ, vide a subsequent order dated 12.04.2022, had recorded as under:-

“… …Accordingly, departmental enquiry has been ordered against Inspector Aishvir Singh and Inspector Gyanender Rana, the then SHOs and the then MHCR PS Chhawla, i.e. HC Sunil No. 1249/DW. Explanation of this officials namely, Sh. Anto Alphone (IPS), Sh. Santosh Kumar Meena (JPS) and Sh. Shankar Choudhary (IPS) who have remained posted as DCP / Dwarka during the given period, is being called for lack of supervision on their part. Further, explanation notices are being issued to Sh. Kulbir Singh, the then ACP / Chhawla and Sh. Manoj Kumar Meena, ACP / Chhawla for their supervisory lapses into the matter.”

[Emphasis Supplied]

6. As evident from above, despite disposal of the anticipatory bail application, the learned ASJ continued to retain the proceedings on board and proceeded to call for the Status Reports regarding the progress of investigation in the aforesaid FIR. Thereafter, the learned ASJ had also directed departmental enquiry as also explanations from the then concerned SHO(s), previous SHO(s) and IO(s) regarding the alleged delay in completion of investigation, directing their appearance before the Court, and continued to monitor proceedings thereof against the petitioner(s) and other Police Officials.

7. In the proceedings before this Co