Delhi High Court
The State Govt Of Nct Of Delhi vs Trishla Jain on 10 March, 2025
Author: Neena Bansal Krishna
Bench: Neena Bansal Krishna
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Pronounced on: 10th March, 2025
+ CRL.M.C. 549/2018, CRL.M.A. 2015/2018
STATE OF NCT OF DELHI
Through Deputy Commissioner of Police
North District, Delhi Police,
PS Civil Lines,
New Delhi110054. .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Yasir Rauf Ansari, Ld. ASC
for the State along with Mr. Alok
Sharma and Mr. Vasu Agarwal,
Advocate with Insp. Satish and SI
Prabhash, P.S. DIU, North.
Versus
TRISHLA JAIN
W/o Late Shri Harsh Kumar Jain
R/o 101, Swaraj Path, Meerut Cantt.
Meerut, Uttar Pradesh. .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Ashutosh Jha and Mr.
Oleander Donald Singh, Advocates
+ W.P. (CRL.) 808/2016, CRL.M.A. 4414/2016
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF POLICE
North District, Delhi Police,
PS Civil Lines,
New Delhi110054. .....Petitioner
Through: Appearance not given.
Signature Not Verified
CRL.M.C. 549/2018 & W.P.(CRL.) 808/2016 Page 1 of 13
Digitally Signed
By:VIKAS ARORA
Signing Date:10.03.2025
19:28:12
Versus
1. STATE
2. TRISHLA JAIN
W/o Late Shri Harsh Kumar Jain
R/o 101, Swaraj Path, Meerut Cantt.
Meerut, Uttar Pradesh. .....Respondents
(Proforma Paty)
Through: Mr. Yasir Rauf Ansari, Ld. ASC
for the State along with Mr. Alok
Sharma and Mr. Vasu Agarwal,
Advocate with Insp. Satish and SI
Prabhash, P.S. DIU, North. Mr.
Ashutosh Jha and Mr. Oleander
Donald Singh, Advocates
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA
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
Signature Not Verified
CRL.M.C. 549/2018 & W.P.(CRL.) 808/2016 Page 2 of 13
Digitally Signed
By:VIKAS ARORA
Signing Date:10.03.2025
19:28:12
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
Signature Not Verified
CRL.M.C. 549/2018 & W.P.(CRL.) 808/2016 Page 3 of 13
Digitally Signed
By:VIKAS ARORA
Signing Date:10.03.2025
19:28:12
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 case of Ravinder Tyagi vs. State Crl.
W.P. No.264/2011 it was observed that the cardinal principle of
administration of justice requires that the Judges must be allowed to
Signature Not Verified
CRL.M.C. 549/2018 & W.P.(CRL.) 808/2016 Page 4 of 13
Digitally Signed
By:VIKAS ARORA
Signing Date:10.03.2025
19:28:12
perform their duties freely and fairly and without undue interference by
anybody even by the superior courts. However, it is equally important
that while expressing their opinions, the Judges must be guided by
consideration of justice, fair play and restraint. It would not be frequent
and sweeping generalizations defeat the very purpose for which they are
made.
8. Likewise in the case of State of West Bengal & Ors. vs. Babu
Chakraborthy (2004) 12 SCC 201, the Supreme Court Observed that the
observations/strictures made against the learned M.M by the High Court
without giving an opportunity of being heard, is violative of catena of
pronouncements of the Apex Court and that harsh or disparaging remarks
are not to be made against the persons and Authorities whose conduct
comes into consideration before the Court of law unless it is really
necessary for the decision of the case.
9. Similar observations have been made in case State of Maharashtra
vs. Public Concern for Governance Trust & Ors., AIR 2007 SC 777; Dr.
Dilip Kumar Deka & Anr. Vs. State of Assam & Anr. (1996) 6 SCC 234,
wherein the Apex Court cautioned superior courts to use temperate and
moderate language and also held that opportunity be given to the affected
party before recording of adverse remarks by the Court.
10. Reliance has also been placed on Rajiv Ranjan Singh „Lalan‟ (VIII)
& Anr. Vs. Union of India & Ors. (2006) 6 SCC 613; DCP vs. Badlu
Paswan & Ors. W.P.(Crl.) No.3034/2015; State vs. Yogender Singh
W.P.(Crl.) No.139/2015; Rakesh Chand vs. State of NCT of Delhi WP
(Crl.)No.207/2015; State vs. Jahid WP (Crl.) 1771/2013 decided on
Signature Not Verified
CRL.M.C. 549/2018 & W.P.(CRL.) 808/2016 Page 5 of 13
Digitally Signed
By:VIKAS ARORA
Signing Date:10.03.2025
19:28:12
12.11.2013; State of West Bengal vs. Mir Mohammad Omar & Ors.
(2000) 8 SCC 234; Ravinder Kumar Tyagi v. State 2012:DHC:4720:DB;
State of WB & Ors. v. Babu Chakraborthy (2004) 12 SCC 201; State of
Maharashtra v. Public Concern for Governance Trust & Ors. (2007) 3
SCC 587; State of Punjab v. Shikha Trading 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1076;
and Sanjay Kumar Sain v. State of NCT of Delhi 2023 SCC OnLine Del
1260.
11. It is further submitted in the Petition that the learned Special Judge
has failed to appreciate that the administrative powers to run the Police
Department are subject to Service Rules and Conduct. If an Officer
appointed by Delhi Police is not working properly or is oblivious of law,
then the action can be initiated against him only as per the settled
principles and procedures of law. For initiating any Departmental action,
a Show Cause Notice is required to be issued and an explanation called
from the Delinquent Officer. If the explanation provided is found to be
satisfactory, then the Show Cause Notice is dropped and if it is not found
satisfactory, then Departmental Enquiry is initiated for which
Chargesheet has to be drawn and procedure as established by law is
required to be followed to conclude if any wrong is committed by the
Delinquent Officer.
12. The learned Special Judge has failed to appreciate that vide the
impugned direction, virtually the guilt of the concerned Police Official
has been decided even without ascertaining their names and even without
calling any explanation. Pertinently, the directions have been issued
against the Officers, who were not even a party to the lis. The
Signature Not Verified
CRL.M.C. 549/2018 & W.P.(CRL.) 808/2016 Page 6 of 13
Digitally Signed
By:VIKAS ARORA
Signing Date:10.03.2025
19:28:12
remark/directions may cast a serious aspersion on the police officials
affecting their character and reputation and ultimately their service
record. Condemnation of police officials acting in their official capacities
ought not to be ordinarily undertaken by the Courts while adjudicating
petitions on merits. Hence, a prayer is made that the remarks and
directions issued against the Delhi Police in the paragraph 24 and 25 of
the Order dated 10.02.2016 be set aside.
13. The Respondent Trishla Jain in her Reply has asserted that
learned Sessions Judge has rightly directed Ministry of Home Affairs to
conduct a Department Enquiry against the Delinquent Police Officials
who failed in their statutory duty and violated the fundamental rights of
the Respondent. The learned Sessions Judge in his well reasoned Order,
specifically pointed out the callous approach of the Police Officers in
dealing with such a sensitive case. In the unfortunate incident of
09.02.2014, body of deceased (son of the Respondent) was found hanging
under mysterious circumstances. She, on getting information about the
incident, rushed urgently from Meerut to Delhi. The investigations were
conducted by the Police and Forensic Experts. The Postmortem of the
deceased was conducted on 10.02.2014 and it reported as many as 14 ante
mortem injuries and the cause of death was stated as Asphyxia due to
ante mortem hanging which were sufficient in ordinary course of nature
to cause death. In the opinion of the Doctors, five of the injuries were
caused by pointed object while two injuries were caused by the use of
sharp weapon. However, no FIR was registered by the Police.
14. In her Complaint dated 15.02.2014 to the Commissioner of Police,
Signature Not Verified
CRL.M.C. 549/2018 & W.P.(CRL.) 808/2016 Page 7 of 13
Digitally Signed
By:VIKAS ARORA
Signing Date:10.03.2025
19:28:12
a copy of which was mark to Police Station Sarai Rohilla, the Respondent
requested them to register an FIR of murder against the accused and
others, but no action was taken by the Police.
15. Pertinently, the Respondent visited the Police Station Sarai Rohilla
for getting the FIR registered, but she was told that they were holding an
inquiry about the phone call details of the deceased and the accused.
Police also informed that a detailed review of postmortem report by a
panel of doctors was recommended. The Police did not make any efforts
to record the statement of the Respondent. Despite elapse of four months
and no registration of FIR by the Police, the Complaint dated 16.06.2014
was made by the Respondent addressed to DCP, District North, Delhi,
despite which no action was taken.
16. Aggrieved by this inaction by the Police Officials, the Respondent
was compelled to file a Criminal Complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C
against the accused on 04.08.2014 accompanied with an Application
under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. The Action Taken Report was submitted by
the Police Officials, the bare perusal of which reflects that the Police
Officials failed to discharge their statutory duty under Code of Criminal
Procedure and their approach was reckless and negligent. The learned
M.M dismissed the Application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C by its Order
dated 20.10.2015.
17. The learned ASJ, however, allowed the Revision Petition of the
Respondent by Order dated 10.02.2016 and directed an express concern
over the conduct of the Police Officials and directed the Ministry of
Home Affairs to initiate Departmental Action against them. The
Signature Not Verified
CRL.M.C. 549/2018 & W.P.(CRL.) 808/2016 Page 8 of 13
Digitally Signed
By:VIKAS ARORA
Signing Date:10.03.2025
19:28:12
Respondent further asserted that despite registration of FIR No.216/2016
P.S. Sarai Rohilla, several Investigating Officers have been changed and
the investigations have been transferred to DIU, North in an arbitrary
manner. The investigations have not been conducted expeditiously.
18. The Respondent thus, filed W.P. (Crl.)672/2018 before this Court
for directing the investigations to be completed in a time bound manner
and the Chargesheet be filed without delay. This Court also took note of
the investigation not been conducted in a proper manner and that there
was unnecessary delay due to the acts of Police Department. It is asserted
that learned ASJ has rightly observed about the dereliction of duty by the
concerned Police Officials.
19. The reference has been made to Lalita Kumari vs. Government of
Uttar Pradesh and Others, 2014(2) SCC 1, wherein it has been directed
that wherever a complaint discloses commission of a cognizable offence,
the FIR is required to be mandatorily registered. The Police had
deliberately disobeyed the directions of the Apex Court and the directions
given by learned ASJ are fully justified.
20. In the present case, the investigations were commenced after a gap
of two years. It is, therefore, submitted that there is no infirmity in the
Order of learned ASJ directing a Disciplinary Action and the present
Petitions are liable to be rejected.
21. Further reliance has been placed on the case of Pankaj Kumar vs.
State of Maharashtra and Ors. (2008) 16 SCC 117; Babubhai vs. State of
Gujarat and Ors. (2010) 12 SCC 254; wherein directions have been
issued by the Courts after giving them a reasonable opportunity.
Signature Not Verified
CRL.M.C. 549/2018 & W.P.(CRL.) 808/2016 Page 9 of 13
Digitally Signed
By:VIKAS ARORA
Signing Date:10.03.2025
19:28:12
22. Submissions heard and record perused.
23. The deceased Vichal Jain, son of the Respondent-Mrs. Trishla Jain
was doing the business of handicrafts in Meerut and had rented premises
in Delhi. He was in relationship with Tavishi Chandra and they used to
reside together in the rented flat, as and when the deceased visited Delhi.
On the day of incident admittedly, Tavishi Chandra and the deceased
were together for the night of 08.02.2014. On 09.02.2014 Tavishi
Chandra left in the morning at about 08:30 A.M, but when she came back
at 09:30 A.M, she found the deceased hanging with a rope. She informed
the Police and told that she had cut the rope with which the deceased was
hanging with the help of a knife and had brought him down. The Post
Mortem Report reflects as many as 14 injuries, out of which 5 injuries
were caused by pointed object and 2 injuries by a sharp object. All the
injuries were stated to be ante mortem.
24. It is an admitted fact that the deceased was found dead in
mysterious circumstances with multiple ante mortem injuries on his body.
The Respondent Trishla Jain, mother of the deceased had given a
complaint on the next day itself, but the Police for the reasons best
known, chose not to register the FIR on the pretext that they were
conducting an Enquiry.
25. In the case of Lalita Kumari (supra), the Apex Court has clearly
stated that when on a complaint a prima facie cognizable offence is
disclosed, the registration of FIR is mandatory. It is not a case where
there was preliminary Inquiry required to ascertain if it was an unnatural
death. The circumstances, as described above, with 14 ante mortem
Signature Not Verified
CRL.M.C. 549/2018 & W.P.(CRL.) 808/2016 Page 10 of 13
Digitally Signed
By:VIKAS ARORA
Signing Date:10.03.2025
19:28:12
injuries justify the immediate registration of FIR. There are specific
averments that despite the Respondent approaching the Police Officials
regularly, she was being given the carrot of the investigations being
conducted and that the opinion of panel of Doctors in regard to the Post
Mortem Report, was being obtained. Clearly, it was a case where FIR
should have been registered immediately on the complaint of Smt. Trishla
Jain.
26. There is no explanation forthcoming from the Police Officials for
not registering the FIR. Pertinently, the efforts of the Respondent to get
the FIR registered under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C did not meet the approval
of the learned M.M and it was only the intervention of the learned ASJ by
Order dated 10.02.2016 that the FIR No. 216/2016 P.S. Sarai Rohilla was
eventually registered. It is also pertinent to observe that the
investigations in right earnestness were still not commenced for two years
on the FIR. The learned ASJ in the circumstances was not unjustified in
observing that there was dereliction on t he part of Senior Police Officials
and SHO/DCP of Police Station Sarai Rohilla. The observations made by
the learned ASJ are as under:
“24. The status reports filed on record before the Ld.
Trial Court and the case file produced before this court,
had indicated a careless attitude and dereliction of
duties, on the part of the SHO P.S. Sarai Rohilla, as well
as the senior police officers, including the then DCP,
North District and the concerned incharge of the
complaints cell at P.H.Q., New Delhi. None of the senior
officers, including the Commissioner of Police, have
called for any report from the SHO concerned and they
have also failed to supervise the complaints filed by theSignature Not Verified
CRL.M.C. 549/2018 & W.P.(CRL.) 808/2016 Page 11 of 13
Digitally Signed
By:VIKAS ARORA
Signing Date:10.03.2025
19:28:12
revisionist, in their offices, at different times.
25. A copy of this order be sent to the Secretary (Home),
Government of India, North Block, New Delhi for his
information and for taking appropriate disciplinary
action against the concerned senior officers of the Delhi
Police and SHO concerned, as the Ministry of Home
Affairs, Government of India, is the cadre controlling
authority of these senior officers of Delhi Police. An
action taken report be also submitted by the Secretary,
Home Affairs, Government of India, North Block, New
Delhi, to this court, within a period of six weeks from
today.”
27. There are no disparaging remarks that have been made, but it is a
clear observation of dereliction of duty by the Police Officials, which in
the circumstances was fully justified. It is not as if any strictures or
adverse remarks have been made, but it is an observation made in the
background of the facts as already narrated. It cannot be, therefore, said
that the learned ASJ failed to exercise any restraint, or his conduct was
not in consonance with the High Court Rules, which discourage making
of any strictures and observations against the Police Officials.
Furthermore, it is the anguish of the learned ASJ in the facts of the case
and blatant disregard to the established procedure as also explained by the
Apex Court in various judgements, that FIR be registered on the
Complaint disclosing a cognizable offence, before commencing any
inquiry, which got reflected when he recommended disciplinary action to
be taken against the erring Police Officers namely the DCP and the SHO.
It may hereby be clarified that when Disciplinary Action has been
recommended, it is not directed that Departmental Enquiry be initiated.
However, what has been recommended is that Ministry of Home Affairs
Signature Not Verified
CRL.M.C. 549/2018 & W.P.(CRL.) 808/2016 Page 12 of 13
Digitally Signed
By:VIKAS ARORA
Signing Date:10.03.2025
19:28:12
being the Appointing Authority of the Police Officials, over whom they
have the superintendence, to look into the conduct of these Police
Officers to ascertain whether there was in fact any dereliction of duty and
any action is warranted against them. It is needless to state that any
Enquiry which may be initiated by the Ministry of Home Affairs would
necessarily be done in accordance with the procedures.
28. There is no infirmity in the impugned Order dated 10.02.2016.
The Compliance Report of Inquiry in regard to dereliction of duties by
the Petitioners be submitted before the learned Trial Court within six
weeks.
29. Both the Petitions stand disposed of along with the pending
Application(s), if any.
(NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA)
JUDGE
MARCH 10, 2025
va
Signature Not Verified
CRL.M.C. 549/2018 & W.P.(CRL.) 808/2016 Page 13 of 13
Digitally Signed
By:VIKAS ARORA
Signing Date:10.03.2025
19:28:12