Delhi High Court – Orders
Xxxxxxx vs The State Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi And Ors on 19 February, 2025
Author: Chandra Dhari Singh
Bench: Chandra Dhari Singh
$~60
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(CRL) 592/2025
XXXXXXX .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. S. G. Goswami, Advocate
versus
THE STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS.
.....Respondents
Through: Mr. Yasir Rauf Ansari, ASC with Mr.
Alok Sharma and Mr Vasu Agarwal
for the State
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA DHARI SINGH
ORDER
% 19.02.2025
1. The present writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India read with Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik
Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeking directions for transfer of investigation to an
independent agency, legal action against the SHO of Police Station –
Dayalpur, and inclusion of additional sections under Bharatiya Nyaya
Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter “BNS”), and Protection of Children from Sexual
Offences Act, 2012 (hereinafter “POCSO”) in the pending FIR bearing no.
396/2024, registered against the respondent nos. 4 to 7, for the offences
punishable under Section 137(2) of the BNS.
2. The brief facts that led to the filing of the instant petition are as
follows:
a. The present writ petition arises from FIR no. 396/2024 registered at
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 14/03/2025 at 22:26:30
Police Station – Dayalpur, Delhi on 1st July, 2024, based on a
complaint lodged by the father of the victim/petitioner. The
complainant alleged that his minor daughter had gone missing from
their residence in North East Delhi on the same day and pursuant to
the same, the police initiated an investigation and registered a case
under Section 137(2) of the BNS.
b. Subsequently, the victim was traced and recovered on 6th July, 2024,
following which her medical examination was conducted. However,
in the course of her examination, the victim refused to undergo an
internal medical examination and explicitly stated in her MLC that
she did not wish to pursue legal action. Subsequently, her first
statement under Section 183 of the BNSS [earlier Section 164 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter “CrPC“)] was
recorded on 11th July, 2024, in which she did not make any
allegations of sexual assault or coercion.
c. A second statement of the victim was recorded on 31st July, 2024,
wherein, she reiterated her earlier stance and did not allege sexual
assault or harassment. She, however, disclosed that she had been
married to the accused, Raabil, in court with the assistance of the
other co-accused, namely, Irshad, Imran and Ilyas.
d. Thereafter, the victim’s third statement was recorded before the
learned Magistrate, in which, for the first time, she alleged that Raabil
and Irshad had sexually assaulted her. She also alleged that Ilyas had
facilitated a fraudulent marriage between her and Raabil, and lastly,
that all the accused had threatened to kill her and her family. Based on
this statement, the investigating agency invoked Sections 64,This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 14/03/2025 at 22:26:30
64(2)(m), 75 of the BNS and Section 6 and 8 of the POCSO Act.
e. The police undertook further investigation and verified victim’s date
of birth from her school records confirming that she was born on 18 th
April, 2007, thereby, indicating that she was a minor at the time of the
incident. The police also bound down the accused persons Irshad,
Imran and Ilyas.
f. Multiple raids were conducted to apprehend the accused Raabil, who
remained untraceable for a long time. Eventually, the accused Raabil
was granted interim protection by the Court concerned vide order
dated 5th November, 2024 and was directed to join the investigation.
g. On 12th November, 2024, the victim’s younger brother was allegedly
threatened by the accused Raabil and his relative, Shahzad, who
purportedly warned him to instruct his sister (the victim) to withdraw
the case, failing which their entire family would be killed.
h. Upon receiving this complaint, the police initiated an inquiry. During
this inquiry, call data records of the accused Raabil were obtained to
ascertain his location on 12th November, 2024. Employment records
from IVC Logistics confirmed that Raabil was at his workplace at the
relevant time, thus, contradicting the claim that he was present at the
location where the threat was allegedly issued.
i. The police also examined CCTV footage from a private shop near the
location, but the visuals were inconclusive in establishing any direct
evidence of the accused’s presence.
j. The petitioner, dissatisfied with the progress of the investigation, has
filed the present writ petition alleging bias and inaction on the part of
the investigating agency.
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 14/03/2025 at 22:26:31
3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the
acts of commission and omission on the part of the respondents, particularly
the investigating agency have resulted in the curtailment of the petitioner’s
personal liberty. It is further submitted that the failure to conduct a fair and
expeditious investigation, coupled with the alleged inaction in apprehending
the accused and addressing the threats to the victim’s family, amounts to a
violation of the petitioner’s fundamental rights.
4. It is submitted that the respondents have remained in constant
communication with each other through various phone numbers between 1st
July, 2024 and 6th July, 2024, indicating a coordinated effort to evade
investigation and manipulate the proceedings. It is also submitted that
respondent no. 4’s movements and actions were well within the knowledge
of the other respondents, suggesting a deliberate conspiracy to shield him
from legal consequences. It is further submitted that despite such prima
facie evidence of collusion, the investigating agency has failed to take
stringent action.
5. It is submitted that the investigating officer initially sought issuance
of Non-Bailable Warrants against respondent no. 4 before the learned Trial
Court, however, the investigating officer subsequently withdrew the
application without any justifiable reason. It is also submitted that instead of
pursuing coercive measures to ensure the accused’s presence, the
investigating officer merely directed respondent no. 4 to join the
investigation, thereby, extending undue leniency to him. It is further
submitted that this conduct of the investigation agency reflects a lack of
seriousness in the investigation and bias in favor of the accused persons.
6. It is submitted that despite serious allegations against the accused
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 14/03/2025 at 22:26:31
persons, the Investigating Officer merely “bound them down” after they
joined the investigation instead of taking stringent action against them. It is
further submitted that respondent no. 4 subsequently sought anticipatory
bail before the learned Trial Court, which was dismissed, thereby affirming
the gravity of the allegations against him. However, the Investigating
Officer’s failure to secure his custody reflects a lack of diligence.
7. It is submitted that respondent no. 4, along with his associate,
threatened the victim’s minor brother, warning him to compel his sister (the
victim) to withdraw the case, failing which he and his entire family would
be killed. It is contended that a formal complaint regarding this serious act
of intimidation was filed by the victim’s mother, yet the investigating
agency has failed to take any decisive action against the accused for
criminal intimidation and witness tampering.
8. It is submitted that the conduct of the investigating officer and the
SHO has been blatantly prejudicial to the fair investigation of the present
case. It is specifically alleged that the SHO told the petitioner’s parents,
“tumhara case gadde me daal dunga” (I will bury your case), thereby,
exhibiting an intent to suppress the investigation and shield the accused.
Such a statement not only reflects a lack of impartiality but also raises
serious concerns about the integrity of the ongoing investigation.
9. In view of the aforesaid submissions, it is prayed that the present
petition may be allowed and the reliefs be granted as prayed for.
10. Per Contra, Mr. Ansari, learned ASC appearing on behalf of the State
vehemently opposed the present petition submitting to the effect that the
same is devoid of merit and is an attempt to interfere with due process of
law.
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 14/03/2025 at 22:26:31
11. It is submitted that the investigation has been conducted fairly and in
accordance with the law, and there is no material on record to suggest that
the petitioner’s personal liberty has been curtailed. It is further submitted
that the contention of the petitioner that the investigation has not been
conducted in a fair and expeditious manner is unfounded and devoid of
merit. Further, mere dissatisfaction with the pace or direction of an
investigation cannot form the basis for interference by this Court.
12. It is submitted that the allegations regarding constant communication
between the respondents and a supposed conspiracy to evade investigation
are vague, unsubstantiated and speculative in nature. There is no concrete
evidence on record demonstrating collusion or an attempt to manipulate
proceedings.
13. It is submitted that a mere withdrawal of an application for issuance
of Non-Bailable Warrants by the investigating officer does not indicate any
mala fide intent or undue leniency towards the accused persons. It is further
submitted that respondent no. 4 was directed to join the investigation, and
he has duly cooperated with the proceedings. Moreover, the police have
acted in accordance with the procedural norms.
14. It is submitted that the allegations regarding threats to the victim’s
minor brother and preliminary inquiries have not corroborated the claims
made by the petitioner. It is also submitted that the CDR analysis places
respondent no. 4 at his workplace in Manesar, Gurgaon at the relevant time,
thereby, casting doubt on the veracity of the petitioner’s claim.
15. It is submitted that the allegations made against the SHO concerned,
regarding purported statements of bias and threats, are unsubstantiated.
There is no independent corroboration supporting the claim that the said
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 14/03/2025 at 22:26:31
SHO made the alleged statement. It is further submitted that disciplinary
actions against the investigating officer cannot be sought in a writ petition
unless a clear and compelling case of abuse of power is made out, which the
petitioner has failed to do so.
16. In view of the above submissions, it is submitted that the present
petition may be dismissed being devoid of any merit.
17. Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties and perused
the material available on record.
18. Before delving into the merits of the petitioner’s plea for intervention
in the ongoing investigation, it is imperative to examine the scope and
limitations of the High Court’s jurisdiction to interfere with police
investigations. The petitioner has sought the transfer of investigation to an
independent agency and directions for further action against the accused,
alleging inaction and bias on the part of the investigating agency.
19. It is well-established that the investigation process is primarily the
domain of the police, and courts must exercise restraint while intervening in
such matters. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in D. Venkatasubramaniam &
Ors. v. M.K. Mohan Krishnamachari & Anr. (2009) 10 SCC 488 has
discussed about the tendency of the High Courts to interfere with the
investigation of the police authorities and observed that interference should
only be made to secure the ends of justice. The relevant portion of the said
judgment is reproduced as under:
“This Court, on more than one occasion, decried uncalled for
interference by the Courts into domain of investigation of
crimes by police in discharge of their statutory functions. The
principle has been succinctly stated way back in Emperor V.
Khwaja Nazir Ahmad AIR 1945 PC 18 and the same has beenThis is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 14/03/2025 at 22:26:31
repeatedly quoted with respect and approval. The Privy
Council observed that “just as it is essential that every one
accused of a crime should have free access to a Court of justice
so that he may be duly, acquitted if found not guilty of the
offence with which he is charged, so it is of the utmost
importance that the judiciary should not interfere with the
police in matters which are within their province and into
which the law imposes upon them the duty of enquiry”
20. This principle has been reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court on
multiple occasions, reinforcing that courts should not interfere with
investigations unless exceptional circumstances warrant such interference.
21. In the present case, the records indicate that the police have taken
significant steps in furtherance of the investigation such as recording
multiple statements of the victim under Section 183 of the BNSS, verifying
call data records and employment details to ascertain alibi claims, and
conducting medical and potency tests of the accused persons.
22. The petitioner has sought transfer of the investigation to an
independent agency, alleging bias, inaction and failure to take stringent
measures against the accused persons. However, the legal standard for
transferring an investigation is stringent and well-defined by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court. In Arnab Ranjan Goswami v. Union of India (2020) 14
SCC 12 it was reiterated that:
“42. The transfer of an investigation to CBI is not a matter of
routine. The precedents of this Court emphasise that this is an
“extraordinary power” to be used “sparingly” and “in
exceptional circumstances”. Speaking for a Constitution Bench
in State of W.B. v. Committee for Protection of Democratic
Rights [State of W.B. v. Committee for Protection of
Democratic Rights, (2010) 3 SCC 571 : (2010) 2 SCC (Cri)
401] (“CPDR, West Bengal”), D.K. Jain, J. observed : (SCC p.
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 14/03/2025 at 22:26:31
602, para 70)
“70. … despite wide powers conferred by Articles 32 and
226 of the Constitution, while passing any order, the
courts must bear in mind certain self-imposed limitations
on the exercise of these constitutional powers. The very
plenitude of the power under the said articles requires
great caution in its exercise. Insofar as the question of
issuing a direction to CBI to conduct investigation in a
case is concerned, although no inflexible guidelines can
be laid down to decide whether or not such power should
be exercised but time and again it has been reiterated
that such an order is not to be passed as a matter of
routine or merely because a party has levelled some
allegations against the local police. This extraordinary
power must be exercised sparingly, cautiously and in
exceptional situations where it becomes necessary to
provide credibility and instil confidence in investigations
or where the incident may have national and
international ramifications or where such an order may
be necessary for doing complete justice and enforcing the
fundamental rights. Otherwise CBI would be flooded with
a large number of cases and with limited resources, may
find it difficult to properly investigate even serious cases
and in the process lose its credibility and purpose with
unsatisfactory investigations.”
43. This principle has been reiterated in K.V. Rajendran v.
CBCID [K.V. Rajendran v. CBCID, (2013) 12 SCC 480 :
(2014) 4 SCC (Cri) 578] . Dr B.S. Chauhan, J. speaking for a
three-Judge Bench of this Court held : (SCC p. 485, para 13)
“13. … This Court has time and again dealt with the
issue under what circumstances the investigation can be
transferred from the State investigating agency to any
other independent investigating agency like CBI. It has
been held that the power of transferring such
investigation must be in rare and exceptional cases where
the court finds it necessary in order to do justice between
the parties and to instil confidence in the public mind, orThis is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 14/03/2025 at 22:26:31
where investigation by the State police lacks credibility
and it is necessary for having “a fair, honest and
complete investigation”, and particularly, when it is
imperative to retain public confidence in the impartial
working of the State agencies.”
23. In the present case, the petitioner has failed to establish such rare and
exceptional circumstances that would warrant investigation. As discussed
earlier, the Police have taken significant steps in furtherance of the
investigation.
24. The mere dissatisfaction of the petitioner with the progress of the
investigation is not a sufficient ground to warrant a transfer to an
independent agency. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has cautioned that such
transfers should not be directed merely because allegations have been made
against the local police. In the absence of any material to indicate collusion,
bias or deliberate suppression of evidence by the investigating officer, this
Court finds no reason to interfere with the ongoing investigation.
25. Considering the absence of any material to indicate bias, collusion or
failure of the State police to conduct a fair investigation, this Court finds no
justification for transferring the investigation to an independent agency.
This Court is of the view that the petitioner has failed to demonstrate any
exceptional circumstances warranting transfer of investigation to an
independent agency.
26. It is observed that the investigating officer has exercised discretion in
withdrawing the application of issuance of Non-Bailable Warrants and
instead ensured that the accused persons joined the investigation. No cogent
evidence has been placed on record to suggest that the investigating agency
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 14/03/2025 at 22:26:31
is acting under extraneous influence or is shielding the accused.
27. Moreover, the petitioner has an alternative remedy under Section 193
(9) of the BNSS before the learned Magistrate for reinvestigation and at this
stage, the interference in the investigation by this Court would be uncalled
for.
28. The prayer for transfer of investigation is accordingly rejected.
29. Moving further, the petitioner has alleged that the SHO concerned
exhibited bias and misconduct in handling the investigation. The primary
allegation is that the SHO told the victim’s parents, “Tumhara case gadde
me daal dunga” (I will bury your case), thereby, displaying an intent to
suppress the investigation and shield the accused.
30. However, the petitioner has failed to provide any independent or
corroborative evidence to substantiate this claim. The alleged statement of
the SHO is based solely on the assertions of the petitioner and her family,
with no supporting witness statements, official complaints, or evidence to
validate the claim. Mere allegations, without any tangible proof, cannot
form the basis of judicial intervention.
31. The investigation already undertaken by the Police contradict the
petitioner’s assertion that the SHO is deliberately suppressing the case. In
the absence of substantial evidence proving bias, collusion, or dereliction of
duty on the part of the SHO, this Court finds no reason to interfere in the
matter or take any action against the investigating officer.
32. The allegations against the SHO remain unsubstantiated and appear to
be based on mere apprehensions rather than concrete proof. The petitioner
has neither approached the superior police authorities nor provided any
independent evidence to validate the claims of bias or misconduct.
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 14/03/2025 at 22:26:31
Consequently, the prayer for action against the SHO is rejected.
33. The mere dissatisfaction of the petitioner with the manner of
investigation is not valid ground for judicial interference. The Hon’ble
Supreme Court has consistently held that the High Court should exercise its
power under Article 226 of the Constitution sparingly and only in rare and
exceptional circumstances where justice demands it.
34. In the present case, there is no material to indicate bias, mala fide
intent or collusion on the part of the investigating agency. Also, the
allegations against the SHO remain unsubstantiated and there is no concrete
evidence to support claim of bias or misconduct.
35. In light of the foregoing discussion, this Court finds no merit in the
present petition. It is held that the petitioner has failed to establish any
exceptional circumstances warranting judicial interference in the ongoing
investigation or necessitate the transfer of the case to an independent
agency.
36. Accordingly, the instant petition stands dismissed along with the
pending application(s), if any.
37. The investigating agency shall continue to conduct the investigation
diligently and in accordance with the law.
38. The order be uploaded on the website forthwith.
CHANDRA DHARI SINGH, J
FEBRUARY 19, 2025
rk/kj/ryp
Click here to check corrigendum, if any
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 14/03/2025 at 22:26:31
