IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
ORIGINAL
CRIMINAL JURISDICTION
CRL
MISC APPLICATION NO 24698 OF 2023
IN
WRIT
PETITION CRIMINAL NO. 2469 OF 2023
IN THE MATTER OF
SEEMA SAPRA … Petitioner
DELHI
POLICE COMMISSIONER & Others
.. RESPONDENTS
APPLICATION UNDER
SECTION 482 CRPC AND INVOKING THE INHERENT POWERS OF THIS HON’BLE COURT SEEKING
RECALL OF DIRECTIONS TO DELHI POLICE TO FILE STATUS REPORT ISSUED IN ORDER
DATED 6 SEPTEMBER 2023 AND INSTEAD SEEKING ORDERS FOR IMMEDIATE REGISTRATION OF
FIR FOR PHYSICAL ASSAULT ON PETITIONER BY TWO POLICEMEN ON 1 MARCH 2019 IN
COMPLIANCE WITH THE LAW AS LAID DOWN BY THE SUPREME COURT IN LALITA KUMARI’S
CASE AND REITERATED IN THE CASE OF SINDHU JANAK NAGARGOJE ON 8 AUGUST 2023 AND AS DIRECTED BY THE SUPREME COURT IN ORDER
DATED 1 MARCH 2019 PASSED IN WP CIVIL 13/ 2018 AND WP CIVIL 1027/2018; AND FOR
DIRECTIONS TO SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS FOR IMMEDIATE PROVISION OF
PROTECTION TO THE PETITIONER ALONG WITH OTHER PRAYERS
The application of
the Petitioner most respectfully showeth :-
1.
Writ
Petition 2469 of 2023 was listed on 6 September before Delhi High Court. The
order passed on 6 September 2023 is reproduced below.
|
$~1 * IN THE HIGH COURT
OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(CRL)
2469/2023, CRL.M.A. 23597/2023 SEEMA SAPRA .....
Petitioner Through: Petitioner
in person versus DELHI POLICE
COMMISSIONER AND ORS ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Amol
Sinha, ASC for the State with Insp. Hankesh Meena, PS Tilak Marg Mr. Kshitiz
Garg, Ms. Ashvini Kumar and Ms. Chavi Lazarus, Advocates for R-1 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE
SAURABH BANERJEE % 06.09.2023 O R D E R 1. Since on the
last/ first date of listing of the present petition, no documents to show the
steps taken by the petitioner pursuant to the order of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court dated 14.08.2019 modified vide order dated 26.11.2019 in Criminal
Appeal Nos.1238/2019 entitled as “Seema Sapra vs. Court On Its Own Motion”,
the petitioner was permitted to file fresh documents to that effect. 2. A perusal of the
record reveals that pursuant to last order dated 31.08.2023 the petitioner
has since filed documents on 31.08.2023 and also on 05.09.2023. 3. Learned ASC for
the State appearing for the respondent nos.1 and 2 seeks time to file a
detailed Status Report entailing the position qua the above documents as
well. 4. Let the same be
filed within a period of three weeks. 5. Renotify on
09.10.2023. 6. After conclusion
of submissions and passing of aforesaid directions, Ms. Sapra, petitioner
appearing in person submits that she has apprehensions of not getting any
justice from this Court. Accordingly, in the interest of justice, list the
matter before another Bench, subject to the orders of Hon’ble
the Chief Justice. 7. At this stage,
she submits that the aforesaid order passed earlier and the recusal
thereafter cannot co-exist as it is not apposite in law. SAURABH BANERJEE, J SEPTEMBER 6, 2023/rr |
2.
The
present application seeks the following relief
|
(i)
Correction of Paragraph 1 of Order dated 6 September 2023
in so far as it erroneously refers to the wrong order (the order of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court dated 14.08.2019 modified vide order dated 26.11.2019
in Criminal Appeal Nos.1238/2019 entitled as “Seema Sapra vs. Court On Its
Own Motion”,) instead of the Order in respect of which compliance/
enforcement is sought, i.e., Order dated 1 March 2019 of the Supreme Court
passed in WP CIVIL 13/ 2018 AND WP CIVIL 1027/2018; (ii)
Recall of Order dated 6 September 2023 in so far as it
directs the filing of a status report by Delhi Police/ Commissioner of
Police/ DCP New Delhi/ any other Police Officer. (iii)
Direct the immediate registration of an FIR by DCP New
Delhi on the Petitioner’s complaint that she was abused, threatened,
intimidated, brutally physically assaulted (repeatedly slapped and punched on
her face, head, upper body and dragged on the ground by two Policemen outside
Delhi High Court in the early hours of 1 March 2019 and that her phone was
snatched and returned to her later in the evening of 1 March 2019 in a broken
condition with memory card erased and evidence destroyed. (iv)
Issue notice in WP Crl. 2469/ 2023 to all four Respondents
so that they can answer the averments made with regard to the Violation of
the Petitioner’s right to life and answer with respect to the wilful and
continued non-compliance with the Supreme Court order dated 1 March 2019 and
the failure to comply with the law declared in Lalita Kumari’s case mandating
registration of an FIR in the case of the Petitioner’s complaint of physical
assault reporting the commission of cognizable offences. (v)
Direct all the four Respondents to file duly affirmed and
verified counter affidavits in WP Crl 2469/2023. (vi)
Direct Respondent No. 4 (Secretary, Ministry of Home
Affairs, Government of India) to immediately provide protection to the
Petitioner. (vii) Direct that the
Tilak Marg Police station, including the SHO and all/ any staff will not be
involved with WP Crl 2469/ 2023, or with the Petitioner’s complaint of
assault on 1 March 2019 or with the resulting FIR/ Investigation, and nor
will they be involved in the filing of any affidavit/ status report in this
case. (viii) Order a Delhi Police
vigilance enquiry by a Joint Commissioner level Police Officer into how
Inspector Hankesh Meena of PS Tilak Marg has appeared in WP Crl 2469/2023 on
31 August 2023 and 6 September 2023 and how he has issued instructions to
Additional Standing Counsel for Delhi Police Mr Amol Sinha. |
3.
This Writ Petition seeks registration of an FIR in terms of
Supreme Court order dated 1 March 2019 for cognizable offences when the
Petitioner was physically assaulted and beaten by two policemen outside Delhi
High Court in the early hours of 1 March 2019. The complaint made to the
Supreme Court by the Petitioner orally on 1 March 2019 disclosed the commission
of cognizable offences. The Supreme Court took cognizance and directed
registration of an FIR by DCP New Delhi. It is reiterated that the Supreme
Court by its Order dated 1 March 2019 has already directed DCP New Delhi to
register an FIR on the Petitioner’s complaint of the physical assault on her by
two policemen on 1 March 2019. The only issue before this Court in this respect
is the enforcement of this direction of the Supreme Court which the Delhi High
Court is bound in law to direct.
4.
The
Supreme Court order dated 1 March 2019 is reproduced below.
|
1 ITEM NO.801 COURT NO.3 SECTION II-C S U P R E M E
C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OFPROCEEDINGS Writ Peti ti on (Civil)
No.13/2018 SEEMA SAPRA Peti ti oner(s) VERSUS UNION OF INDIA &ORS.
Respondent(s) WITH W.P.(C) No.1027/2018 (X) Date : 01-03-2019 These matters
were mentioned today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.A. BOBDE HON'BLE MR.
JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA For 31/08/2023, Appellant(s) Ms. Seema Sapra, Peti ti
oner-in-person For Respondent(s) UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the
following O R D E R Ms. Seema Sapra, Advocate, who is appearing as the petiti
oner-in-person in these writ petitions, has mentioned before this Court today
that she has been assaulted by some policemen outside the High Court of Delhi
last night. It would be appropriate if Ms. Sapra, petitioner-in person, files
an First Information Report (FIR) to that effect in the Office of appropriate
Deputy Commissioner of Police who is in-charge of the Tilak Marg Police Stati
on, New Delhi. She may also seek police protection since she apprehends
danger to her life. As prayed for, liberty is also granted to Ms. Sapra, 2
petitioner-in-person, to fi le interlocutory application for directions in
the main writ petitions. (SANJAY KUMAR-II) (INDU KUMARI POKHRIYAL) COURT
MASTER (SH) ASSISTANT REGISTRAR |
5.
Subsequently
this Supreme Court order dated 1 March 2019 was communicated to the
Commissioner of Police and to the DCP New Delhi along with detailed written
complaints describing the physical assault in detail, with time, place,
circumstances and the actual details of how the assault was carried out by two
policemen and describing how the petitioner was physically beaten. Despite
this, the DCP New Delhi failed to register an FIR.
6.
The
Petitioner has on 31 August 2023 filed in this case (i) Copy of Petitioner’s
email complaint dated 1 March 2019, (ii) Copy of Petitioner’s email complaint
dated 2 March 2019, and (iii) Copy of Petitioner’s email complaint dated 3
March 2019. Additionally, there are several thousands of complaints the
Petitioner has made to the Delhi Police subsequent to 3 March 2019 which have
all been ignored.
7.
In
addition, the Petitioner personally visited the Offices of DCP New Delhi and
ACP New Delhi on Parliament Street on at least 3 occasions and sought a meeting
with the DCP New Delhi. She also
personally served a copy of the Supreme Court order dated 1 March 2019 on the
office of DCP New Delhi and ACP New Delhi. The staff of DCP New Delhi did not
allow/ assist the Petitioner to meet the DCP New Delhi. She was always told he
was not in the office and her requests for a meeting were ignored.
8.
The
Petitioner personally called the DCP New Delhi on his mobile several times but
her calls were not answered. Similarly, her text and WhatsApp messages sent to
the official mobile phone of DCP New Delhi were also ignored. The Petitioner
texted the entire text of the Supreme Court order to the DCP New Delhi on his
official mobile but this was also ignored. The Petitioner repeatedly communicated
the order dated 1 March 2019 to the Delhi Police, the Commissioner of Police
and DCP New Delhi by Twitter but these tweets were also ignored. In fact, when
Eish Singhal was DCP New Delhi, he blocked the Petitioner’s Twitter account @SeemaSapraLaw
right after she tweeted this order to the twitter account of DCP New Delhi.
9.
The
Petitioner continued to be targeted, poisoned, threatened, assaulted from 2019
to 2023. The Petitioner relies in his regard upon the contents of her
applications filed in the Supreme Court in 2019 (which will be produced on
record) and upon the contents of WP Civil 543/ 2023 which was filed by her in
the Supreme Court and which will also be produced on record.
10. Writ Petition Criminal
2469/ 2023 was filed in Delhi High Court on 21 August 2023 seeking compliance
with and enforcement of Supreme Court order dated 1 March 2019 and seeking the
following relief.
|
(i)
Direct the
DCP New Delhi to immediately register an FIR on the Petitioner’s complaint
that she was physically assaulted and beaten by two Policemen outside Delhi
High Court in the early hours of 1 March 2019 and that her mobile phone was
snatched by these Policemen and that the mobile phone was broken and returned
to the Petitioner later in the evening of 1 March 2019 by the Tilak Marg
Police station SHO in his office; (ii)
Direct the
DCP, New Delhi and the Commissioner of Police to immediately comply with the
Supreme Court Order dated 1 March 2019 passed in Writ Petition Civil 13/ 2018
with Writ Petition Civil 1027/2018 and to immediately register the necessary
FIR as directed in this order and to provide full protection to the
Petitioner so as to ensure that the Petitioner is not harmed in any manner
including by Policemen; (iii)
Direct the
Commissioner of Police, the DCP New Delhi and the Ministry of Home Affairs to
provide immediate and full protection to the Petitioner after looking into
the threat to her life based upon documentary evidence to be supplied by the
Petitioner; (iv)
To pass
such other orders and further orders as may be deemed necessary on the facts
and in the circumstances of the case. |
11. It was listed in Delhi
High Court on 31 May when the Court asked the Petitioner to produce the
complaints made to the Police subsequent to the Supreme Court Order dated 1
March 2019. ‘
12. The Petitioner filed
the following documents in Court.
|
S. No |
Particulars |
|
1 |
True copy of Supreme Court Order dated 14 August
2019 |
|
2 |
True Copy of Supreme Court Order dated 26
November 2019 |
|
3 |
Copy of Petitioner’s email complaint dated 1 March
2019 |
|
4 |
Copy of Petitioner’s email complaint dated 2 March
2019 |
|
5 |
Copy of Petitioner’s email complaint dated 3 March
2019 |
AND
|
S. No |
Particulars |
Pages |
|
1 |
Photos taken by Petitioner just before she was
beaten by two policemen outside Delhi High Court in the early hours of 1
March 2019. These got saved because the Petitioner had tweeted them before
her phone was snatched. |
1-20 |
|
2 |
Screenshots of a few of the many messages sent by
the Petitioner to then DCP Madhur Verma on his official mobile phone |
21-32 |
|
3 |
Screenshots of Petitioner’s unanswered calls to then
DCP Madhur Verma |
33-34 |
|
4 |
Pictures taken by Petitioner in then DCP Madhur
Verma’s office when she was threatened and intimidated by the Police staff in
the pictures to prevent her from meeting or seeking a meeting with DCP Madhur
Verma |
35-36 |
|
5 |
Pictures of the Petitioner’s broken phone which was
returned to her after being broken by the Police |
37-38 |
|
6 |
Google map showing exact location of assault |
39 |
13. Order dated 31 August 2023 passed in the
present case reads:
|
$~59 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(CRL) 2469/2023, CRL.M.A. 23594/2023 SEEMA SAPRA ..... Petitioner Through: Petitioner in person versus DELHI POLICE COMMISSIONER AND ORS ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Amol Sinha, APP for the State with Insp. Hankesh Meena, PS Tilak Marg CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAURABH BANERJEE % 31.08.2023 O R D E R 1. Ms. Seema Sapra, petitioner appearing in person, submits that the documents
as mentioned hereinbelow have been filed today itself vide Diary No
1494946/2023:- i) Copy of Supreme Court Order dated 14.08.2019 ii) Copy of Supreme Court Order dated 26.11.2019 iii) Copy of petitioner’s e-mail complaint dated 01.03.2019 iv) Copy of petitioner’s e-mail complaint dated 02.03.2019 v) Copy of petitioner’s e-mail complaint dated 03.03.2019 2. The Registry is directed to place them on the record of the e-file. 3. List on 06.09.2023. SAURABH BANERJEE, J AUGUST 31, 2023/rr |
14. On 31 August 2023,
Justice Saurabh Banerjee did not allow the Petitioner to speak or to address
the court. He was aggressive, rude and hostile to the Petitioner and his
attitude toward the Petitioner made her feel belittled. The Petitioner had on
that date complained that he was being hostile and his exaggerated impatience
with the Petitioner would send the wrong message to the Policemen who were
present in Court. In fact, Justice Saurabh Bannerjee had then apologized to the
Petitioner.
15. Writ Petition 2469/
2023 was again listed before Court on 6 September 2023. The Petitioner was
targeted by Policemen before the hearing both outside and inside the court room.
When the case was called out on 6 September 2023, Justice Saurabh Bannerjee unfortunately
did not permit the Petitioner to speak and address the Court. He was hostile
and aggressive and rude and did not permit the Petitioner to address the Court.
The Petitioner asked for issuance of notice on the writ petition. The Judge refused.
The Petitioner was not given a hearing, not permitted to present her case, not
permitted to state what relief she was asking for. Instead, Justice Saurabh
Bannerjee passed an order directing the Delhi Police to file a “status report”.
The Petitioner asked to be heard before this order was passed as it was
unlawful and contrary to the law laid down in the Constitution Bench Judgment
of Lalita Kumari but she was not permitted to speak. The lawyer appearing for
Delhi Police Amol Sinha acquiesced in this direction without demur. When the
Petitioner asked Justice Saurabh Bannerjee to clarify which officer would file
the status report, she was again shut down by the Court and this was also not
clarified.
16. Inspector Hankesh
Meena from Tilak Marg Police Station was again present in Court for the hearing
on 6 September 2023 along with lawyer Amol Sinha. When the Petitioner objected
to the appearance of an officer from Tilak Marg Police Station being involved
in the matter in the light of the offence involving policemen from Tilak Marg
Police Station and because the Supreme Court Order specifically directed the
DCP New Delhi to register the FIR in his own office and because the Supreme
Court had specifically wanted the Tilak Marg Police station to be kept away
from this complaint and from the consequent FIR, the Petitioner was again not
allowed to speak by Justice Saurabh Bannerjee and was shut down by him. Inspector
Hankesh Meena’s appearance has again been recorded in the Order dated 6
September 2023.
17. The matter was
adjourned to 9 October 2023.
18. The Petitioner told
Justice Saurabh Bannerjee immediately that she would be filing an appeal as the
order he had just passed was legally unsustainable, unlawful, and contrary to
the express directions of the Supreme Court order dated 1 March 2019. She also
told Justice Bannerjee that she had come to court prepared to file an appeal as
she had no hope of getting any justice from his court. The Petitioner
used the words “No hope” and did not use the word “apprehension” as recorded in
the Order dated 6 September 2023. She stated that she had neither got a hearing
nor justice. On this Justice Bannerjee passed an order of recusal asking the
Chief Justice to list the matter before another Bench. The Petitioner then
asked Justice Saurabh Bannerjee if the recusal order meant that his earlier
order would go. He said no. The Petitioner replied that the correct practice
was that if a Judge was recusing then he ought not to simultaneously pass a
substantive order as that would not be “appropriate”. Justice Bannerjee simply
recorded this submission. For the record, the Petitioner also informed Justice
Saurabh Bannerjee that she had at no point asked for him to recuse.
19. At 2.30 pm on 6
September 2023, the Petitioner mentioned the case before Justice Saurabh
Bannerjee and told him that any order asking for a police status report instead
of the immediate registration of an FIR in the case of a complaint clearly
describing a physical assault and thereby disclosing and making out a
cognizable offence would be a violation of the Supreme Court’s directions in
Lalita Kumari’s case and would be unlawful. The Petitioner told Justice Saurabh
Bannerjee that the only lawful course open to the Court was to direct the
immediate registration of an FIR.
20. The Petitioner handed
over to Justice Saurabh Bannerjee a print-out of a decision of the Jammu &
Kashmir High Court where the High Court relying upon Lalita Kumari’s case,
struck down a decision of a Magistrate who had called for a police status
report instead of directing the registration of an FIR for a cognizable
offence. A copy of this decision is reproduced below. Justice Saurabh Bannerjee expressly stated
that he would read this judgment. However the Order dated 6 September 2023 does
not deal with this judgment or with the law declared in Lalita Kumari.
|
12/05/2022 HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU CRM (M) No. 331/2022 CrlM No. 695/2022 Reserved on : 27.04.2022 Pronounced on : 04.05.2022 Kamaljeet Singh age 47 yrs. S/O Mehar Chand R/O
Natraj Road Lines Fruit Mandi Narwal Jammu. …. Petitioner (s) Through :- Mr. Himanshu Beotra, Advocate V/s 1. Union Terrotory of J&K Through SHO Police
Station Trikuta Nagar Jammu; 2. Joginder Singh S/O Raunak Singh R/O Village
Sangrampur Akhnoor. ….Respondent(s) MR. JUSTICE MOHAN LAL ORDER 04.05.2022 1. Petitioner has invoked the jurisdiction of this
court in terms of section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for seeking
quashment of orders dated 05-04-2020 & 20-04-2022 rendered by the court
of Ld. Judicial Magistrate 1st Class City Judge Jammu, whereby, the Ld. Court
instead of proceeding and directing respondent No.1 to register FIR in
cognizable offence disclosed by the petitioner in his application against
respondent No.2, has directed respondent No.1 to file the ‘status repot’ and
to conduct the ‘preliminary enquiry’ in the cognizable offence contrary to
the mandatory provisions of law and against the Constitutional Bench judgment
of Hon’ble Supreme Court titled Lalita Kumari V. Govt. of U.P. [2014 (2) SCC
1], with further direction to respondent No.1 to lodge/register FIR against
Respondent No.2 u/ss 403/406/408/409/420 /506 IPC disclosed in the complaint. 2. It is averred, that petitioner is a transporter
running a business under the name and style of “M/s Style Natraj Road Lines”
having its registered office at Narwal Fruit Mandi Jammu, and has been
providing his services to the various vendors at Fruit Mandi Narwal Jammu for
transportation of Apples to the different parts of the Country on credit
basis, as such, the transportation charges were collected by the respondent
no. 2 who being an employee/agent of the petitioner since over a decade had
developed a relation of trust with the petitioner for the said purpose,
respondent no. 2/accused person used to collect the charges from the
clients/debtors of the petitioner in the regular course of business, who
being the servant/ agent of the petitioner in said business used to report
the collection so made by him by the clients/debtors of the petitioner. It is
averred, that petitioner as usual for the period 2019 to 2021 on credit basis
provided his transportation services to the firms viz; 1. Satpal & Co.
14,50,000/- 2. Tarsem Lal & Deepak Kumar 7,33,000/ 3. Madan Lal &
Sons 4,70,000/- 4. Vinod Kumar & Co 73,000/- 5. Sopar Fruit Co. 49,000/-,
however, the petitioner was shocked to know recently on 22-03-2022 from the
aforesaid debtors/clients that the respective charges to be paid by them
stood already collected by the respondent no. 2 in the month of February and
March 2022, respondent No.2 did not pay the same to the petitioner nor
reflected in his books maintained, as much as an amount of Rs 13,09,800/-,
RS. 6,07,000/-, Rs.4,70,000/-, Rs 73,000/- & Rs. 49,000/- by Sat Pal
& Co., Tarsem Lal & Deepak Kumar, Madan Lal & Sons, Vinod Kumar
& Co, Sopar Fruit Co. respectively totaling Rs. 25,08,800/- was taken
already by the respondent no. 2 which was never forwarded to be paid to the
petitioner thereof, petitioner after being shocked by the aforesaid fact
contacted the respondent no. 2 to enquire the same, however, the respondent
no. 2 audaciously accepted that he had collected the aforesaid amount from
clients/debtors of the petitioner and even accepted to have mis-appropriated
the aforesaid funds dishonestly for his own use and refused to pay back the
same, on the contrary respondent No.2 threatened the petitioner to eliminate
him and his family, and further threatened to implicate him in false and
frivolous case in case the petitioner would follow him or lodge any complaint
against him. It is moreso averred, that aforesaid facts clearly demonstrate
that respondent no. 2 had swindled huge money of the petitioner amounting to
Rs 25,08,800/- which he was under legal obligation to hand over the same to
the petitioner, but respondent no. 2 with dishonest intention & illegal
act misappropriated the aforesaid amount and has converted and used the said
amount for his own use and rather than returning the said amount, respondent
no. 2 has been threatening the petitioner, for which the respondent no. 2 was
required to be booked under appropriate provisions of Indian Penal Code. It
is further averred, that petitioner was left with no option but he appeared
before respondent No.1 (SHO P/S Trikuta Nagar Jammu) for lodging FIR against
respondent No.2 and filed a written complaint dated 22-03-2022 against proper
receipt disclosing the commission of cognizable offences, however, when nothing
was done, petitioner approached SSP Jammu by way of complaint sent through
registered post dated 30-03-2022 but no FIR was registered and finally
petitioner filed an application u/s 156(3) of Cr.PC before Ld. JMIC City
Judge Jammu and in support of his averments he also filed an affidavit as
well as copy of the complaint dated 22-02-2022 lodged with respondent No.1
alongwith postal receipts dated 30-03-2022 sent to SSP Jammu, but the Ld.
Magistrate vide impugned order dated 05-04-2022 rather directing respondent
No.1 to register FIR in cognizable offence disclosed in the complaint called
for the status report from respondent No.1 against the provisions of law,
however, respondent No.1 filed the report on 19-04-2022 wherein, he neither
denied the receipt of the complaint from petitioner nor disclosed as to
whether FIR has been lodged, but sought time to file status report clearly
meaning thereby that respondent No. 1 has flouted the mandatory provisions of
Sec. 154 of Cr.pc and not only this, the Ld. Magistrate on 20-04-2022 passed
yet another impugned order whereby he after accepting the fact that
petitioner had complied the provisions of Section 154(1) & 154(3) of
Cr.pc directed respondent No.1 to complete the preliminary enquiry within 7
days and to proceed in accordance with law. 3. Ld. Counsel for petitioner at the time of
presentation of the petition has vehemently articulated arguments, that
pending notice to the respondents, the petition can be disposed of with the
direction to respondent No.1 to register the FIR. Ld. Counsel has forcefully
argued, that registration of FIR is mandatory u/s 154 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure if information disclose commission of a cognizable offence and no
preliminary enquiry is permissible in such a situation, moreso, a police
officer cannot avoid his duty of registering the offence if cognizable
offence is disclosed, however, the scope of preliminary enquiry is only to
verify the veracity or otherwise of the information in cases of
matrimonial/family disputes, commercial offences, medical negligence cases
& corruption cases etc. It is vehemently urged, that if a police officer
does not register FIR on the application or the complaint disclosing
cognizable offence, the action must be taken against such erring officers, in
the case in hand, the complaint/application filed by the petitioner before
respondent No.1 (SHO P/S Trikuta Nagar Jammu) discloses commission of
cognizable offences u/ss 403/406/408/ 409/420/506 IPC, therefore, respondent
No.1 was mandatorily required to register FIR, in as much as, the Ld.
Magistrate in ordering the status report and conducting preliminary enquiry
in the matter was legally incorrect, misdirected itself and committed a
serious departure from the mandatory provision of law as enunciated in (i)
Lalita Kumari Vs Govt. of U.P. (2014) 2 SCC 1), (ii) Ram Sharan Jatav V.
State of U.P, (Allahabad) & (iii) Anisetti Venkata Nagendra Babu V. State
of Andhra Pradesh (writ Petition No. 15178 of 2019 decided on 14-10-2019) in
not ordering registration of FIR against respondent No.2. Prayer has been
made for setting aside/ quashment of impugned orders dated 05-04-2022 &
20-04-2022 passed by JMIC City Judge Jammu with the direction to respondent
No.1 to lodge FIR against Respondent No.2. 4. Heard Ld. Counsel for petitioner. The averments
of petition disclose that a serious departure has been made by Ld. Magistrate
in not following the mandate of Lalita Kumari’s judgment (Supra) relied by
Ld. Counsel for petitioner, and as the question of law requires appreciation,
the respondents are not required to be heard at this stage, therefore, the
petition can be disposed off on legal issue and on merits. In Lalita Kumari Vs. Govt. of U.P. [2014 (2) SCC 1]
relied by Ld. Counsel for petitioner, 5 Judges Bench of Hon.ble Supreme Court
enunciated the mandatory provisions to be followed while registering FIR by
the police as under:- Criminal Procedure Code, Section 154 Registration of
FIR is mandatory under Section 154 of the Code, if the information discloses
commission of a cognizable offence and no preliminary enquiry is permissible
in such a situation - Whether the information is falsely given, whether the
information is genuine, whether the information is credible etc. These are
the issues that have to be verified during the investigation of the FIR
Further held:- (i) If the information received does not disclose a
cognizable offence but indicates the necessity for an inquiry, a preliminary
inquiry may be conducted only to ascertain whether cognizable offence is
disclosed or not. (ii) If the inquiry discloses the commission of a
cognizable offence, the FIR must be registered - In cases where preliminary
inquiry ends in closing the complaint, a copy of the entry of such closure
must be supplied to the first informant forthwith and not later than one week
It must disclose reasons in brief for closing the complaint and not
proceeding further. (iii) The police officer cannot avoid his duty of
registering offence if cognizable offence is disclosed Action must be taken
against erring officers who do not register the FIR if information received
by him discloses a cognizable offence. (iv) The scope of preliminary enquiry is not to
verify the veracity or otherwise of the information received but only to
ascertain whether the information reveals any cognizable offence. (v) As to what type and in which cases preliminary
inquiry is to be conducted will depend on the facts and circumstances of each
case The category of cases in which preliminary inquiry may be made are as
under:- (a) matrimonial disputes/family disputes (b) Commercial offences (c) Medical negligence cases (d) Corruption cases (e) Cases where there is abnormal delay/laches in
initiating criminal prosecution, for example, over 3 months delay in
reporting the matter without satisfactorily explaining the reasons for delay.
The aforesaid are only illustrations and not exhaustive of all conditions
which may warrant preliminary inquiry. (vi) While ensuring and protecting the rights of the
accused and the complainant, a preliminary inquiry should be made time bound
and in any case it should not exceed 7 days - The fact of such delay and the
causes of it must be reflected in the General Diary entry. (vii) Since the General Diary/Station Diary/ Daily
Diary is the record of all information received in a police station, we
direct that all information relating to cognizable offence, whether resulting
in registration of FIR or leading to an inquiry, must be mandatorily and
meticulously reflected in the said Diary and the decision to conduct a
preliminary inquiry must also be reflected, as mentioned above In Ram Sharan Jatav—Appellant Versus State of U.P
& Others—Respondents [Cr. Appeal No. 6822 of 2019 D/d 17-12-2021] &
in Anisetti Venkata Nagendra Babu—Petitioner versus The State of Andhra
Pradesh and others—Respondents [writ Petition No. 15178 of 2019 decided on
14-10-2019] relied by Ld. Counsel for petitioner, the principles of law for
registration of FIR in Lalita Kumari.s judgment (Supra) have been followed
with full force by Allahabad and Andhra Pradesh High Courts holding that u/s
156(3) of Criminal Procedure Code 1973 it is the duty/incumbent upon the
Magistrate concerned to order the registration of First Information Report
(FIR) in the application which discloses the commission of cognizable offence
and in that situation no preliminary enquiry was permissible. 5. Ratios of the judgments of “Lalita Kumari.s
Case”, “Ram Sharan Jatav.s Case” & “Anisetti Venkata Nagendra.s Case”
(Supra) relied by Ld. Counsel for petitioner make the legal proposition
abundantly clear, that the registration of FIR is mandatory u/s 154 of Cr.pc
if information discloses commission of cognizable offence and no preliminary
enquiry is permissible in such a situation, the preliminary enquiry can only
be conducted to ascertain wither cognizable offence is disclosed and moreso
the police officer cannot avoid his duty of registering the offence if
cognizable offence is disclosed and action must be taken against such earring
officers. It is noteworthy to reiterate here, that annexure-III to the
petition is the complaint lodged by the petitioner to respondent No.1 (SHO
Police Station Trikuta Nagar Jammu) against respondent No.2 in regard to the
offences of criminal breach of trust/misappropriation of the money of the
complainant, cheating to him by respondent No.2 who was his employee and
criminal intimidation etc. and out of the offences u/ss 403/406/408/
409/420/506 IPC incorporated in the complaint, offences u/ss 406,408,409,420
IPC are cognizable. After the refusal of respondent No.1 to register FIR, the
petitioner/complainant approached the court below under the provisions of
Section 156(3) of Cr.pc seeking directions to respondent No.1 to lodge FIR
against respondent No.2/accused under the relevant sections of law. Impugned
order dated 05-04-2022 (Annexure I) rendered by the court of Ld. Judicial
Magistrate 1st Class (City Judge Jammu) depicts that the said court has
directed respondent No.1 (SHO P/S Trikuta Nagar Jammu) to furnish status
report in the complaint lodged by the petitioner. By another impugned order
dated 20-04-2022 (Annexure-II) rendered by the said court has passed
directions to SHO P/S Trikuta Nagar Jammu to complete the preliminary enquiry
within 7 days and proceed in accordance with law. Perusal of the aforesaid
impugned orders dated 05-04-2022 & 20-04-2022 demonstrate that the Ld.
Court below has shown complete departure in not following the principles
enunciated by 5 Judges Bench of Hon.ble Supreme Court in Lalita Kumari.s case
(Supra) governing the field to be observed while registering FIR. The Ld.
court below therefore, was legally incorrect and utterly misconceived in
obtaining the status report and ordering the preliminary enquiry in the
complaint. The complaint filed by petitioner before the police/court clearly
discloses the commission of cognizable offences, and therefore, it was
mandatory for respondent No.1 (SHO P/S Trikuta Nagar Jammu) as well as the
Ld. Judicial Magistrate 1st Class (City Judge Jammu) to register FIR on the
complaint of petitioner against respondent No.2. In view of the above, I am
of the considered view, that the Ld. Court below has misdirected itself and
utterly erred in obtaining the status report and ordering preliminary enquiry
in the complaint which is against the mandate of law as discussed above.
Hence, the petition is allowed. The impugned orders dated 05-04-2022 &
20-04-2022 are quashed/set aside. It is, therefore, ordered that the Court of
Ld. Judicial Magistrate 1st Class (City Judge Jammu) on receipt of this order
shall forthwith pass orders for registration of the FIR against respondent
No.2 without fail and further delay. Copy of this order be forthwith provided
to the Ld. Court below for information and strict compliance. 6. Disposed of accordingly. (Mohan Lal) Judge Jammu: 04.05.2022 Vijay |
21. The Petitioner also
relies upon the 8 August 2023 decision of the Supreme Court in SINDHU JANAK
NAGARGOJE versus State of Maharashtra where the Supreme Court reiterated its
directions in Lalita Kumari’s case and stated that since the complaints made
did disclose the commission of cognizable offences, the Police had to proceed
further with the complaints in accordance with law by registration of an FIR. A
copy of this decision is also reproduced below.
|
1 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2023 (arising out
of SLP (Crl.) No. 5883 of 2020) SINDHU JANAK NAGARGOJE ..... APPELLANT(S) VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. .....
RESPONDENT(S) O R D E R Leave granted. The appeal is directed against the impugned order
dated 05.10.2020 passed in Criminal Writ Petition No. 817
of 2020 by the High Court at Bombay, Appellate Side, Bench at
Aurangabad, whereby the High Court has dismissed the writ petition filed
by the appellant – Sindhu Janak Nagargoje seeking
directions to register the offence as per the complaints submitted by the
appellant. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the
appellant that the deceased Shivaji Bangar, brother of the
appellant was severely beaten and brutally assaulted by the accused on
02.04.2020 and he succumbed to injuries on 03.04.2020. Thereafter on
05.04.2020, the appellant and others had gone to the concerned police station
to register the crime, however the same was not registered. The appellant
thereafter submitted the complaints on 06.05.2020 and 12.06.2020 to the
concerned respondents however no action was taken to register the complaint. 2 The appellant - Sindhu Janak Nagargoje, therefore,
approached the High Court by way of the Writ Petition, which
has been dismissed by the impugned order. In view of the decision rendered by the Constitution
Bench in the case of “Lalita Kumari vs. State of Uttar
Pradesh & Ors.,” reported in (2014) 2 SCC 1, we are of the opinion
that the registration of FIR is mandatory under Section 154
of CrPC, if the information discloses commission of cognizable offence. We
may reiterate summary of law stated therein: - “120. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we hold: 120.1. The registration of FIR is mandatory under Section 154 of the Code, if the information
discloses commission of a cognizable offence and no
preliminary inquiry is permissible in such a situation. 120.2. If the information received does not disclose
a cognizable offence but indicates the necessity for
an inquiry, a preliminary inquiry may be conducted only to ascertain whether cognizable offence is disclosed or not. 120.3 If the inquiry discloses the commission of a cognizable offence, the FIR must be registered. In cases where preliminary inquiry ends in closing the complaint, a copy of the entry of such closure must
be supplied to the first informant forthwith and not later than one week. It must disclose reasons in
brief for closing the complaint and not proceeding
further. 120.4 The police officer cannot avoid his duty of registering offence if cognizable offence is disclosed. Action must be taken against erring officers who do not register the FIR if information received by him discloses a cognizable offence. 120.5 The scope of preliminary inquiry is not to verify the veracity or otherwise of the information received but only to ascertain whether the
information reveals any cognizable offence. 120.6 As to what type and in which cases preliminary inquiry is to be conducted will depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. The category of
cases in which preliminary inquiry may be made are as
under: (a)
Matrimonial disputes/ family disputes 3 (b)
Commercial offences (c) Medical
negligence cases (d)
Corruption cases (e) Cases
where there is abnormal delay/laches in initiating criminal prosecution, for example, over 3 months delay in reporting the matter without satisfactorily explaining the reasons for delay. The aforesaid
are only illustrations and not exhaustive of all conditions which may warrant preliminary inquiry. 120.7 While ensuring and protecting the rights of
the accused and the complainant, a preliminary inquiry should be made time bound and, in any case, it
should not exceed 7 days. The fact of such delay and the causes of it must be reflected in the General Diary entry. 120.8 Since the General Diary/Station Diary/Daily Diary is the record of all information received in a police station, we direct that all information relating to cognizable offences, whether resulting
in registration of FIR or leading to an inquiry, must
be mandatorily and meticulously reflected in the said Diary and the decision to conduct a preliminary inquiry must also be reflected, as mentioned above.” In the instant case, the complaints submitted by the appellant to the concerned respondents did disclose
the commission of cognizable offence and also the names of the
alleged offenders. In that view of the matter, we allow the present
appeal and direct that the concerned respondents shall proceed
further with the complaints filed by the appellant in accordance
with law. The impugned order is set aside and appeal is
allowed in the above terms. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed
of. ..................J. (BELA M. TRIVEDI) ..................J. (DIPANKAR DATTA) NEW DELHI; AUGUST 08, 2023. 4 ITEM NO.21 COURT NO.15 SECTION II-A S U P R E M E
C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF
PROCEEDINGS Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.
5883/2020 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order
dated 05-10-2020 in CRLWP No. 817/2020 passed by the High Court of
Judicature at Bombay at Aurangabad) SINDHU JANAK NAGARGOJE Petitioner(s) VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. Respondent(s) (IA No. 120356/2020 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF
THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT ANd IA No. 120357/2020 - EXEMPTION FROM
FILING O.T.) Date : 08-08-2023 These matters were called on for
hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MS.
JUSTICE BELA M. TRIVEDI HON'BLE MR.
JUSTICE DIPANKAR DATTA For Petitioner(s) Mr. Sudhanshu S. Choudhari, AOR For Respondent(s) Mr. Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, AOR Mr. Siddharth
Dharmadhikari, Adv. Mr. Bharat Bagla, Adv. Mr. Sourav Singh, Adv. Mr. Aditya Krishna, Adv. UPON hearing
the counsel, the Court made the following O R D E R Leave granted. The appeal is allowed in terms of the signed order. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed
of. (BABITA PANDEY) (R.S. NARAYANAN) COURT MASTER (SH) ASSISTANT REGISTRAR (Signed order is placed on the file) |
22. The Petitioner also relies upon the decision
dated 8 March 2022 in Ganesh S Hegde S/O Shankrappa ... vs The State Of
Karnataka rendered by Justice Suraj Govindaraj of the Karnataka High Court
which is also reproduced below.
|
Ganesh S Hegde S/O Shankrappa ... vs The State Of Karnataka on 8
March, 2022 Bench: Suraj Govindaraj :1: IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 08TH DAY OF MARCH,
2022 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURAJ
GOVINDARAJ WRIT PETITION No.100746/2022
(GM-POLICE) BETWEEN GANESH S.
HEGDE, S/O.
SHANKRAPPA HEGADE, AGE 61
YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST, R/O.
ATTIMURD, POST HEROOR, TALUK :
SIDDAPURA, PIN : 581450
... PETITIONER (BY SHRI.
VISHWANATH BHAT, ADVOCATE FOR SRI.
NARAYAN V. YAJI, ADVOCATE) AND 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, DEPARTMENT OF HOME AFFAIRS, VIDHANA SOUDHA, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560001. 2. THE TAHSILDAR SIDDAPURA, UTTAR KANNADA DISTRICT - 581355. 3. THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, SIRSI, UTTAR KANNADA DISTRICT, PIN : 581401. 4. THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, SIDDAPURA TALUKA, UTTAR KANNADA, DISTRICT-581355
... RESPONDENTS (SHRI.
SHIVAPRABHU HIREMATH, AGA FOR RESPONDENTS) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER
ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, READ WITH SECTION 482 OF :2: CR.P.C.,
PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS AND DIRECT THE
RESPONDENT NO.2 TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION OF THE
PETITIONER DATED 01.02.2022 VIDE ANNEXURE-E TO THE WRIT
PETITION AND ALSO DIRECT THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO REGISTER FIR
IN PURSUANCE OF A COMPLAINT SUBMITTED BY THE
PETITIONER ON 20.01.2022 VIDE ANNEXURE-D TO THE WRIT PETITION AS
IT IS ILLEGAL AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE
THE FOLLOWING: ORDER 1. The petitioner is before this Court, seeking
for the following reliefs: (i)
Issue a writ of mandamus and direct the respondent No.2. to
consider the representation of
the petitioner dated 01.02.2022 vide Annexure-E to the writ petition
and also direct the 3rd respondent to register FIR in pursuance of a
complaint submitted by the petitioner on 20.01.2022 vide Annexure-D to the
writ petition as it is illegal and unconstitutional. (ii) Issue a writ, mandamus, direction or
declaration or pass such other orders as this Hon'ble Court deems fit under
the facts and circumstances of the case, to meet the ends of justice. 2. The grievance of the petitioner is that, the
petitioner on 20.01.2022, at about 10.00 a.m. on account of his sister and
her husband having entered the property of the petitioner with 30 gunda
elements and removed the standing Areka Nut crop by force and threatened. 3. The petitioner immediately called the
respondent No.4 over telephone however no action was taken. Despite the first
information having been provided, no complaint was registered. Hence, the
petitioner called the police helpline No.112 and informed about the
non-cooperation of the 4th respondent and for registration of FIR, despite
which no action has been taken. Subsequently, the petitioner approached
respondent No.3 the Deputy Superintendent of Police, requesting him to
initiate action. 4. The Deputy Superintendent of Police had
directed the 4th respondent Inspector of Police to take action despite which
the 4th respondent has not registered a complaint, but called upon the
petitioner and his sister to come to the Police Station along with
the documents relating to the property for the purpose of enquiry. 5. It is on the above basis, the petitioner is
before this Court contending that, the respondents have not registered an FIR
in pursuance of first information provided by the petitioner and therefore,
his rights have been violated so also the procedure prescribed by the Apex
Court in the case of Lalita Kumari Vs. Government of Uttar Pradesh and
others, reported in (2014) 2 SCC 1. 6. Sri. Narayan V. Yaji, learned counsel for the
petitioner would submit that, since the petitioner had informed the 4th
respondent and or the Police helpline about the commission of a cognizable
offence, an FIR ought to have been registered which till date has not been
registered. On this ground, he submits that, the relief as sought is required
to be granted. 7. Sri. Shivaprabhu Hiremath, learned AGA would
however submit that, there is no call received by the 4th respondent, a call
was made only to the police helpline No.112, the operator had informed the
person attending the emergent call in the sub- police station, who in fact
had visited the spot and having found that there are some disturbance had
directed the persons present there not to cause any nuisance and had asked
them to attend to Police Station along with the documents of the disputed
property. 8. Though the petitioner's sister attended to the
enquiry along with the possession receipt and Judgment copy, the petitioner
did not attend to the enquiry and as such his complaint was not registered. 9. He further submits that, the petitioner
directly approached the Office of the Deputy Superintendent of Police the
respondent No.3, complaining about the trespass to the land when
respondent No.3 forwarded the same to the respondent No.4 seeking for a
report in the matter. 10. After receipt of the information from
respondent No.3, despite respondent No.4 making various phone calls to the
petitioner, the petitioner did not come forward or assist in the enquiry,
therefore, no action has been taken, the writ petition has filed is
misconceived and no relief can be granted in the present matter. 11. These being the submissions by both the
counsels, the point that would be required to be determined by this Court is
"Whether on information being received, either on the police helpline or
directly to a police station, the concerned Officer can carryout a enquiry,
requiring the complainant to attend an enquiry before registering of a
complaint?" 12. This aspect is no longer a res integra. The
Apex Court in the case of Lalita Kumari's case (supra) has extensively dealt
with the matter and has concluded on the applicability and the procedure to
be followed as also issued various directions. The same are reproduced
hereunder for easy reference: "120.
In view of the aforesaid discussion, we hold: 120.1. The
registration of FIR is mandatory under Section 154 of the Code, if the information discloses commission of a
cognizable offence and no preliminary inquiry is permissible in such a
situation. 120.2. If
the information received does not disclose a cognizable offence but indicates
the necessity for an inquiry, a preliminary inquiry may be conducted only to
ascertain whether cognizable offence is disclosed or not. 120.3. If
the inquiry discloses the commission of a cognizable offence, the FIR must be
registered. In cases where preliminary inquiry ends in closing the complaint,
a copy of the entry of such closure must be supplied to the first informant
forthwith and not later than one week. It must disclose reasons in brief for
closing the complaint and not proceeding further. 120.4. The police officer cannot avoid his duty
of registering offence if cognizable offence is disclosed. Action must
be taken against erring officers who do not register the FIR if information
received by him discloses a cognizable offence. 120.5. The scope of preliminary inquiry is not to
verify the veracity or otherwise of the information received but only to
ascertain whether the. information reveals any cognizable offence. 120.6. As to what type and in which cases
preliminary inquiry is to be conducted will depend on the facts and
circumstances of each case. The category of cases in which preliminary
inquiry may be made are as under: (a) Matrimonial disputes/family disputes (b) Commercial offences (c) Medical negligence cases (d) Corruption cases (e) Cases where there is abnormal delay/laches in
initiating criminal prosecution, for example, over 3 months' delay in
reporting the matter without satisfactorily explaining the reasons for delay. The aforesaid are only illustrations and not
exhaustive of all conditions which may warrant preliminary inquiry. 120.7.
While ensuring and protecting the rights of the accused and the complainant,
a preliminary inquiry should be made time- bound and in any case it should
not exceed 7 days. The fact of such delay and the causes of it must be
reflected in the General Diary entry. 120.8. Since the General Diary/Station
Diary/Daily Diary is the record of all information received in a police
station, we direct that all information relating to cognizable offences,
whether resulting in registration of FIR or leading to an inquiry, must be
mandatorily and meticulously reflected in the said diary and the decision to
conduct a preliminary inquiry must also be reflected, as mentioned
above." 13. A perusal of the above indicates that,
whenever any information is received disclosing a commission of a cognizable
offence, there is no preliminary enquiry which is permissible and FIR is
required to be registered by the person receiving information. It is only
when the information received does not disclose a cognizable offence, a
preliminary enquiry could be conducted to ascertain if there is a cognizable
offence committed or not. If the enquiry discloses the commission of a
cognizable offence an FIR must be registered. 14. These being the categorical findings of the
Apex Court, applying the same to the present case, there was a call alleged
to have been made by the petitioner to the respondent No.4 complaining
about the trespass by his sister, her husband and 30 gunda elements into his
property and the removal of the standing Areka Nut crop in the said property.
This aspect is denied by the respondents. However, it is admitted that there
was a call made to the police helpline Number on "112", informing the
said police helpline about the trespass and removal of Areka Nut. 15. Once, such an information has been provided
by any citizen to the police helpline or to the police station and that
information discloses the commission of a cognizable offence as in this case,
inasmuch as the trespass into the property of the petitioner and removal of
Areka Nut is a cognizable offence in terms of Sections 441 and 427 of the Indian Penal code. The information
disclosing the offence ex facie being cognizable there was no enquiry which
was required to be conducted as sought to be contended by the learned
AGA. The decision of the Apex Court in the case of Lalita Kumari (supra) is
very clear. 16. The Apex Court has also stated that in the
event of a Police officer not registering the offence when a cognizable
offence is disclosed, action must be taken against the erring officials, who
do not register an FIR. 17. In the aforesaid circumstances and on the
basis of the aforesaid reasoning, I pass the following: ORDER (a) A Mandamus is issued, directing the
respondent No.2 to consider the representation of the petitioner dated
01.02.2022 and register the FIR in pursuance of the complaint submitted by
the petitioner on 20.01.2022 and thereafter investigate the matter. (b) The Superintendent of Police, Uttara Kannada
District is directed to enquire into the matter and take suitable action
against the respondent No.4 for violation of the directions issued by the
Apex Court in the case of Lalita Kumari (supra) and submit a report to this
Court, within a period of eight weeks from today. (c) With the above observation, the writ petition
stands allowed. Sd/- JUDGE SVH |
23. The Petitioner
also relies upon some relevant observations and directions in a decision of the
Delhi High Court by Justice Subramonium Prasad dated 31 January 2022 in RAJESH
SURI @ RAJ SURI versus State which are reproduced below,
|
16. During the proceedings, this Court was apprised of the fact that a
similar complaint had been instituted by the prosecutrix/Complainant herein
before P.S. Kapashera wherein she had levelled allegations of sexual assault
against one Manish Tanwar. However, no FIR was registered in that case and
that matter had been put to rest on the basis of a compromise which had been
arrived at between the parties therein. This Court notes that
non-registration of an FIR in the event that the commission of a cognizable
offence is disclosed goes against the law laid down by the Supreme Court in
Lalita Kumari v. Government of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. (2008) 7 SCC 164.
Furthermore, it has been time and again held by the Supreme Court that cases
involving the offence of rape cannot be settled on the basis of a compromise
(See State of M.P. v. Madanlal, (2015) 7 SCC 681). 17. Furthermore, a perusal of the record indicates that the medical
examination of the prosecutrix/Complainant in relation to FIR No. 668/2020
was conducted before the registration of the FIR but the MLC was conducted on
the basis of DD Entry bearing No.4A. This raises the suspicion that the
instant FIR had not been registered at the time it was alleged to have been
registered. This adds weight to the submission of the learned Senior Counsel
for the Petitioner that there has been possible manipulation of the instant
FIR and the Police was attempting to settle the case. This Court, therefore,
directs for a vigilance inquiry to be conducted by the Deputy Commissioner of
Police, Vigilance, into: i. Why an FIR was not registered at P.S. Kapashera when the written
complaint of the prosecutrix dated 10.07.2020 disclosed the commission of a
cognizable offence and why was the matter allowed to be laid to rest on the
basis of a compromise? ii. When the FIR was registered at 12:20 AM, why was
the MLC registered only on the basis of DD number on the FIR and was the FIR
ante timed because of negotiations in the Police Station? 18. The Deputy Commissioner of Police, Vigilance, Delhi Police, is
directed to submit a report on the aforesaid queries within a period of two
months from the date of this Order. |
24. The Petitioner
also relies upon paragraph 73 of the decision of the Supreme Court of India in
Amish Devgan vs Union Of India where the following was clarified on 7 December,
2020.
|
73. Acronym FIR, or the First Information Report, is neither defined
in the Criminal Code nor is used therein, albeit it refers to the information
relating to the commission of a cognisable offence. This information, if
given orally to an officer in-charge of the police station, is mandated to be
reduced in writing. Information to be recorded in writing need not be
necessarily by an eye-witness, and hence, cannot be rejected merely because
it is hearsay. Section 154 does not mandate nor is this requirement manifest
from other provisions of the Criminal Code. Further, FIR is not meant to be a
detailed document containing chronicle of all intricate and minute details.
In Dharma Rama Bhagare v. State of Maharashtra,118 it was held that an FIR is
not even considered to be a substantive piece of evidence and can be only
used to corroborate or contradict the informant’s evidence in the court. 74. In Lalita Kumari, a Constitution Bench, of five judges of this
Court, has held that Section 154 of the Criminal Code, in unequivocal (1973)
1 SCC 537 (b) and (2) of Section 157 of the Criminal Code, a police officer may
foreclose an FIR before investigation if it appears to him that there is no
sufficient ground to investigate. At the initial stage of the |
25. The Petitioner requested
Justice Saurabh Bannerjee at 4.30 pm on 6 September 2023 to ensure that the
order for 6 September 2023 was uploaded on the same day to enable her to file
an appeal. The order dated 6 September 2023 was only uploaded on the Delhi High
Court website after 3 pm on 11 March 2023 and after the Petitioner requested
the court-master.
26. On 6 September
2023, the Petitioner being a lawyer herself also told lawyers nominated as
police counsel by the LG for Delhi, specifically Mr Sanjay Lao, Mr Anand Khatri
and Mr Amol Sinha that they were clearly engaged in a criminal conspiracy to
obstruct the filing of FIRs in her complaints of cognizable offences and that
she would explore all possible action against them for this including a case
for contempt of court. Amol Sinha later told Justice Saurabh Bannerjee that the
Petitioner was “badgering” him outside Court. The Petitioner told the Court
that Amol Sinha had shown no concern for the Petitioner as a victim-
complainant. He had not even spoken to the Petitioner, had actively avoided
speaking to her, and his conduct showed that his only endeavour and intent was
a cover-up and that she would take steps against him in accordance with law.
Justice Saurabh Bannerjee asked the Petitioner and Mr Amol Sinha to discuss
this further outside the court-room,
27. This application
is being made on an urgent basis as the learned Single Judge Justice Saurabh
Bannerjee has also ignored the Petitioner’s pending application seeking
protection (IA NO. 23597/ 202) stating that the Petitioner is being poisoned on
a daily basis, the ongoing threat to the Petitioner’s life, the Petitioner’s prayer
for protection in the writ petition itself, and the express and clear direction
in the Supreme Court order dated 1 March 2019 regarding provision of protection
to the Petitioner.
28 The Petitioner
submits that the order dated 6 September 2023 has resulted in further
endangering the life of the Petitioner as the policemen involved in the assault
and their colleagues will attempt to murder the Petitioner and do everything to
incapacitate the Petitioner.
29 Justice Saurabh
Bannerjee’s order dated 6 September is against the law laid down by the Supreme
Court in Lalita Kumari and reiterated in countless decisions since then
including most recently on 8 August 2023 in SINDHU JANAK NAGARGOJE. It is also
contrary to the express directions of the Supreme Court in the order passed in the
Petitioner’s case on 1 March 2019. It is respectfully submitted that the Delhi
High Court cannot ignore binding precedents of the Supreme Court and the
Supreme Court’s express directions relating to this particular complaint. Delhi
High Court Judges are bound by their oath of allegiance to the Constitution of
India to show respect for and uphold the law including the law as declared by
the Supreme Court and as directed in Supreme Court orders.
30 The unlawful order
passed by Justice Saurabh Bannerjee has also endangered the Petitioner’s life.
This order can also be potentially used and will be used by Delhi Police to
attempt a cover-up and/ or destruction of evidence.
31 The Petitioner is
also filing the present application on an urgent basis without even waiting for
a copy of the order dated 6 September 2023 and is seeking urgent hearing on
this application before a specially constituted vacation bench because the courts are shut for four days with
an almost lockdown like situation in Delhi from 7-10 September because of the
G20 summit. The Delhi police will use this period to poison the Petitioner, And
indeed the Petitioner is being poisoned with poisonous chemical fumes being
released into her Rajokri premises all day today and yesterday.
32 In summary, the
Supreme Court order dated 1 March 2019 contained three different directions.
First the direction for registration of an FIR by DCP New Delhi. Second the
direction for non-involvement of Tilak Marg Police Station and staff. And
third, the direction that the Police will provide protection to the Petitioner
facing a threat to her life. These three directions were reiterated by the
Supreme Court in its orders dated 14 August 2019 and 26 October 2019. Copies of
both these orders were also filed in this case on 31 August 2023. The order
passed by Justice Saurabh Bannerjee on 6 September 2023 violates all three of
these directions of the Supreme Court, besides violating the law declared by
the Supreme Court in Lalita Kumari’s case and reiterated in the recent case of
SINDHU JANAK NAGARGOJE. Needless to say such an order like the one passed in
this case on 6 September 2023 is not permissible in law.
33 Why pass an order
directing the Delhi Police to file a status report and at the same time refuse
to issue notice to the Delhi Police (specifically to the two concerned
officers, i.e., the Commissioner of Police and DCP New Delhi) in the case. There
is great potential for mischief and fraud by Delhi Police in these
circumstances. Are the Commissioner of Police and DCP New Delhi even aware of
this Writ Petition. Or is lawyer Amol Sinha merely interacting with Inspector
Harkesh Meena of Tilak Marg police station. This scenario can be used to file a
fraudulent status report in the case, which would not be possible if the DCP
New Delhi was directed to file an affidavit after issuance of formal notice in
the matter. The Petitioner will show in Court that all previous status reports
filed by Delhi police in her cases have been fraudulent and these frauds have
been facilitated by counsel appearing for Delhi Police. The same kind of fraud
will be attempted in this matter also pursuant to the directions issued on 6
September 2023. The Petitioner also submits that criminal law and the CrPC do
not envisage the Police filing status reports dehors an existing FIR and
criminal investigation process. The practice of asking the Delhi Police to file
status reports (instead of affidavits) to place facts on record is incorrect in
law and creates the opportunity for the Delhi Police to mislead the Court by
making incorrect statements of fact without accountability. In many cases,
status reports are not even signed by the proper officer. In the Petitioner’s
case itself in WP Crl 437/ 2018 false status reports have been filed with
merely an initial on behalf of a DCP level Officer using the word “for”. The
Petitioner therefore submits that it is imperative that Respondents 1 and 2 in
the present case be directed to file duly signed, affirmed and verified
affidavits so that the correct facts are placed before this Court.
34 The Petitioner
also reproduces below extracts from her written complaints dated 1, 2 and 3
March 2019 which have been filed before the Delhi High Court in Writ Petition
2469/ 2023 on 31 August 2023 and which clearly disclose the commission of
cognizable offences.
35 Extracts from the
Petitioner’s written complaints sent to the Police immediately after she was
physically assaulted by two Policemen outside Delhi High Court on 1 March 2019
|
Between 12 am to 1 am, I have been brutally
assaulted, repeatedly slapped on the face and head ,punched by two policemen
post midnight outside gate 8 Delhi High Court in a pre-planned conspiracy. They
are from Tilak Marg thana. They snatched and took away my phone to destroy
the evidence. I was slapped, punched on my face and head by two policemen at
least 10 times. I fell on the road, they dragged me and kept on slapping and
punching me. My right arm and hand is badly twisted and hurt. I got an auto and went to Tilak Marg police station.
One of these men was there. The other is maybe named Ishwaran. The policewoman there including an SI Dharmendra
Kumar refused to help me retrieve my phone. I left scared for my life and
hailed an auto and am back at my guesthouse. I have audio records of the assault. I have uploaded
these on the internet for safekeeping. I have spoken to the SHO three times. He has failed
to locate my phone and return it to me. I have warned him that any damage to
my phone or the sim card or any deletion of videos/pictures on my phone will
amount to destruction of evidence. I will be mentioning this before the Chief Justice
of India tomorrow at 10.30 am. The police has now crossed all limits. This was a pre-planned attack on me and some dogs I
feed. A new SHO has joined Tilak Marg thana only
yesterday. The new guy did not know of my cases, emails and complaints. Hence
this attack was planned. I have told the SHO that I do not want to meet any
of his men/ women tonight. There is a danger to my life from the Police. I
have refused to tell the SHO where I am. He wanted to send some people here
tonight. I have refused. I will describe everything that has happened tonight
to the Chief Justice of India in Court 1 in the Supreme Court at 10.30am. |
|
So on 1 March, I
mentioned the brutal beating that I was subjected to by two policemen (while
two other policemen and an assembled gang being used to target me watched)
outside Delhi High Court in the early hours of the night of 1 March before
the Bench of Justice Bobde and Justice Deepak Gupta. The Chief Justice of India
did not hold Court so I was unable to mention before him. The Court has
passed the following order: 1 ITEM NO.801
COURT NO.3 SECTION II-C S U P R E M E C
O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF
PROCEEDINGS Writ Petition
(Civil) No.13/2018 SEEMA SAPRA
Petitioner(s) VERSUS UNION OF INDIA
& ORS. Respondent(s) WITH W.P.(C)
No.1027/2018 (X) Date :
01-03-2019 These matters
were mentioned today. CORAM : HON'BLE
MR. JUSTICE S.A. BOBDE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICEDEEPAK GUPTA For Appellant(s)
Ms. Seema Sapra, Petitioner-in-person For Respondent(s) UPON hearing the
counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Ms. Seema Sapra,
Advocate, who is appearing as the petitioner-in-person in these writ
petitions, has mentioned before this Court today that she has been assaulted
by some policemen outside the High Court of Delhi last night. It would be
appropriate if Ms. Sapra, petitioner-in person, files an First Information
Report (FIR) to that effect in the Office of appropriate Deputy Commissioner
of Police who is in-charge of the Tilak Marg Police Station, New Delhi. She
may also seek police protection since she apprehends danger to her life. As
prayed for, liberty is also granted to Ms. Sapra, petitioner-in-person, to
file interlocutory application for directions in the main writ petitions. (SANJAY
KUMAR-II) (INDU KUMARI POKHRIYAL) COURT MASTER (SH)ASSISTANT REGISTRAR The concerned
DCP indicated in the order is Madhur Verma who is the DCP for New Delhi
District under which Tilak Marg Police station falls. He is copied on this
email. A copy of the
order was made available to me only around 5 pm yesterday despite directions
by Justice Bobde that the order be provided expeditiously. This was due to deliberate
delay of 4 hours (after the Judges had approved the draft order) by
Additional Registrar Sunil Kumar, his staff and the court master Sanjay. The
intent of this delay was to frustrate the order of the Court by preventing me
from approaching the DCP on Friday during his working hours. Even now this
order though issued in Writ Petition 13/2018 and Writ Petition 1027/2018 has
only been wrongly uploaded on the Supreme Court website under my Criminal
Appeal Diary No. 10342/2016. A copy of the order was emailed to me by the
Supreme Court Registry around 5 pm. Nevertheless, a
copy of the order was given by me to DCP Madhur Verma's Secretary at his
office on Parliament Street last evening. I have also emailed a copy of this
order to DCP Madhur Verma yesterday evening. I called his mobile a number of
times last evening but he failed to answer. I also sent him an SMS and there
has still not been any reply. I have also tweeted this order to DCP Madhur
Verma as he is very active on Twitter and often responds to celebrity
complaints on Twitter. But there has been no response to me despite this
Supreme Court order. The legal news website
LiveLaw has published a report on the court mentioning by me on1 March which
is reasonably accurate and is reproduced below.
https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/lady-lawyers-plea-alleging-sexual-harassment--143254 Lady Lawyer's
Plea Alleging Police Harassment: SC Directs Police To Look Into The Matter
BY: LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK1 March 2019 12:35 PM In a packed
courtroom on Friday, a lady advocate narrated an unfortunate episode of her
having been manhandled by two policemen outside the Delhi High Court in the
wee hours of the morning. "They hit
me...I fell down but they kept beating me...they snatched my phone...Iwas
crying and they left me there...I could not even book a cab...somehow I got
togate 4 where they helped get an auto...", she almost broke down before
the bench headed by Justice S. A. Bobde. She contended
that the assault was in the wake of her 2018 petition alleging sexual harassment
against two veteran lawyers, my petition against them is listed now on March
25 after over a year? And I am being physically assaulted?! This has crossed
all limits! And this is not the first instance where I have been targeted!
Lot of events have happened!" "I was
called to the Tilak Marg police station to pick up my phone. But when I went
this morning at 8, it was completely broken! One of the policemen from last night
is is definitely from this police station because I saw him there...I had
clicked pictures of them last night but now my phone has been
destroyed!", she urged passionately. "I have
sent an email complaint to the Secretary General of this court and the police
commissioner. I intend to move an application for interim protection describing
what has happened and providing evidence. Even if my phone was destroyed, I
had turned on the audio recording last night. The Entire assault is on audio
tape- me crying, their slaps! The entire episode would also have been captured
on the CCTV cameras there!" When the bench
requested Senior Advocate Indira Jaising (who was present in court) to extend
legal assistance and offered to bring the police to the lady advocate's aid,
she vehemently refused- "I don't want legal assistance! I don't want any
other lady lawyer's help! No lawyer has come to my aid for 9-10 years! I can fight
my own battle!" She also refused
to approach the police- "I just need some protection! What will Ido with
the police? My complaint is with them! Let them handle it!" "We will do
the right thing. You cannot dictate our order. This is not a police station
where you can come and complain...we are telling you what to do now! You can't
tell us! You have already taken up 15 minutes of our time!", observed
Justice Bobde sternly. "So I
shouldn't have mentioned? A lady advocate is sexually harassed and thrashed and
that is worth less than 15 minutes of the court's time? I am wasting your time?",
she argued. "Don't put
words in our mouth! We are saying don't waste our time now that we are
passing the order... We can't hear you any more...", stated Justice
Bobde. Procuring Ms.
Jaising's assistance as an advocate of the court, the judge inquired about
the correct course of action. Ms. Jaising
submitted that first of all, a proper FIR be registered. If there is no action
on it, then a petition could lie for a mandamus to the police to
investigate-"the jurisdiction is with the Tilak Marg Police station. But
a zero FIR can be recorded elsewhere if there is apprehension of bias The bench
directed the concerned ACP to look into the matter, requiring the woman
advocate to file a FIR and to seek protection when she apprehends danger. However,
the bench declined to list her petition next week. https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/lady-lawyers-plea-alleging-sexual-harassment--143254 The policemen
also snatched my phone during the assault to destroy evidence and they have
returned my phone the next day in a broken condition. I still have audio
recordings as my dictaphone was on. Plus the
incident happened outside Delhi High Court so there should be CCTV records. Attempts were
also made by Delhi Police security to prevent me from entering court 3 after
we were informed shortly after 10 am that Justice Gogoi would not hold court
in court number 1. A policeman grabbed my bag and tried to stop me from
entering court 3 and tried to pull me out. I was in lawyer robes with a
lawyer entry pass for all courts issued on the basis of my Bar Council of
Delhi identity card. I was carrying a printout of the Supreme Court order
that directs that I be permitted to carry my laptop stroller bag inside the
Court room. The police security and Colonel Marwaha of the Supreme Court Registry
know about this order. The Policeman who was used to attempt to prevent my entry
was forced to back off after I showed him the order inside court. I have also
received notices from the Supreme Court Registry that Writ Petition
Civil13/2018 (seeking protection) and Writ Petition Civil 1027/2018 (sexual
harassment petition and seeking Z+ security) will also be listed for hearing
before the Supreme Court on 25 March 2019 when my Criminal Appeal Diary No.
10342/2016 is listed. I also went to
Tilak Marg Police Station last evening and handed over a copy of the Supreme
Court order dated 1 March to the SHO Devendra Kumar. He has joined this duty only
on 26 February. I informed him that the specific direction of the Supreme
Court is that the DCP will register an FIR and not the Tilak Marg Police
station as the complaint of beating is against police from the Tilak Marg
police station. Justice Bobde was specifically concerned that the complaint
be made to police not connected with Tilak Marg police station. I also asked
the SHO to read my complaints which are being emailed to him as well. I asked
the SHO to take a picture of my broken phone which he returned to me. He
refused. But I have taken pictures of my broken phone in his office and also
have audio records of my meeting with him. Despite the
Court order, the attacks on me have not ceased. On 1 March I was targeted using
a toxic chemical inside the office of additional registrar Sunil Kumar where
I was made to wait for the order. I was targeted with the same chemical
inside the SCBA library2 where I spent time to download the order and email
it. I left the
Supreme Court and went to Tilak Marg Police Station. I was targeted with some
toxic chemical as I was exiting. My auto from
Tilak Marg police station was followed. One of the men following my auto was
on a two wheeler with licence no. DL8S8C9354. I am being followed all the
time. Both yesterday
and today, I have again been repeatedly targeted with poisonous chemical fumes
and pesticides being intermittently deliberately released into the guesthouse
room I am living in. Last night I was
again repeatedly targeted outside gate 8 of the Delhi High Court with poisonous
chemical fumes. Once again this was planned and deliberate. I took back the
broken phone from the Tilak Marg police station only because it had my sim
card and data card. The sim card was still working. I have bought a new
phone. The data card in my broken phone has been either wiped clean, or
reformatted or replaced. Forensic examination of my broken phone and the data
card found inside it is possible. The SHO has also failed in his duty to
secure evidence relating to the destruction of my phone and the deliberate
destruction of evidence on my phone. The Tilak Marg
SHO is equally responsible for the destruction of my mobile phone by the Police
and for the destruction of evidence by deletion of the videos and pictures
that I took outside Delhi High Court both prior to the assault and during the
assault. I had repeatedly requested him on the night of 1 March to protect my
phone and the evidence and to return he phone to me but he did not do
anything. In fact the
Tilak Marg SHO might have gone to the Delhi High Court on the night of 1March
in an attempt to see CCTV evidence. He told me this on the phone on the night
of 1March. I hope no attempt has been made or is made to destroy these
records. But the rules of CCTV records cannot allow them to be erased so
soon. I request the Registrar
General of the Delhi High Court, the Police Commissioner and DCP Madhur Verma
to ensure that no CCTV records from the Delhi High Court gates and borders
including along the roads outside the Delhi High Court are deleted or
destroyed. And I again request DCP Madhur Verma to contact me
either by email or on my phone. |
|
So the update is this. Despite being made aware of
the Supreme Court order dated 1March 2019, the DCP for New Delhi Madhur Verma
has still not contacted me even after my several messages to him. I again ask
Madhur Verma to register an FIR as directed by the Supreme Court. Meanwhile I have continued to be poisoned by the
deliberate introduction of poisonous chemical fumes/ gases and pesticides
into the guesthouse room I am staying in all day today as well as last night.
This is being done with the involvement of the Police. Last night I was again poisoned with toxic chemical
fumes/ gases deliberately outside gate 8 of the Delhi High Court. I am very afraid that policemen of Tilak Marg police
station and particularly the two who beat me up and the other persons being
used to target me will harm me. My life is in even greater danger now. Because of the beating that I was dealt with by the
two policemen, I have faint bruises on my face and tender spots on my
forehead, on the left cheekbone and on the bridge of my nose. Yesterday and
last night I also had severe muscle soreness on my upper arms and around the
shoulders. This is because the two policemen pulled at my arms while trying
to snatch my phone and even after I fell down they dragged me around the
ground by pulling on my arms. The soreness in my upper arms and around the
shoulders is now better. Indira Jaising's unwelcome interference in my matter
when I mentioned the assaul tbefore the Bench of J. Bobde and J. Deepak Gupta
has resulted in a sub-optimal order being passed. If she had not interfered
(obstructed), I could have requested for a protection order from the Court
itself. I will in any case do this on the next hearing. I have also stated on
affidavit fled in Criminal Appeal Diary No. 10342/2016 my objection to Indira
Jaising being involved in my cases in any manner. She has several conflicts
of interest as her NGO gets funding from US agencies and organizations with
CIA ties like the Ford Foundation. Most high profile sexual harassment cases
taken up by her get covered up. 31/08/2023, 12:07 Gmail - Grave and Immediate threat
to life of Seema Sapra, General Electric Company whistle-blower and sexual
harassme… https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=3558d51e15&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-a:r-6485159601866405736%7Cmsg-a:r612461379916…
3/27 A screenshot of a Google map showing where the
assault happened outside the Delhi High Court (see red cross) is attached.
The spot falls within CCTV coverage. Pictures I had taken before the assault happened and
which I had posted on Twitter are available and I have now also uploaded them
on my blog at https://seemasapra.blogspot. com/2019/03/supreme-court- order-dated-1-march-2019_1. html Note that the two policemen in the pictures at https://seemasapra.blogspot. com/2019/03/supreme-court- order-dated-1-march-2019_1. html watched the assault happen. They did not themselves
hit me but were watching as two policemen who they called from Tilak Marg
Police station hit me repeatedly. I had also taken pictures and videos of the two
policemen who hit me and the white private car that they were driving. These
were on my phone but my phone was snatched and destroyed by the two policemen
who hit me. There were several other pictures and videos that I
had taken of the moments before the assault which were also on my phone. |
36 Meanwhile the
Petitioner continues to be poisoned with chemical fumes being deliberately
released into her Rajokri premises. The Petitioner has been poisoned everyday
(except one day and night) even after the Delhi High Court passed the following
protection order dated 1 June 2023 in WP Crl 437/2018 which has also not been
complied with. The Petitioner has filed Contempt Case Civil 1174/ 2023 because
of the continued non-compliance with the Delhi High Court Order dated 1 June
2023.
|
$~34 *
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI +
W.P.(CRL) 437/2018 SEEMA
SAPRA ..... Petitioner Through:
Petitioner in person. versus UNION
OF INDIA & ORS ..... Respondents Through:
Ms Monika Arora, CGSC with Mr Yash
Tyagi and Mr Subhrodeep, Advocate
for CGSC. Ms
Priyanka Dalal, APP for the State with
SI Pramod Kumar, Cyber Cell, Crime
Branch. CORAM: HON'BLE
MR. JUSTICE VIKAS MAHAJAN O
R D E R %
01.06.2023 1.
The petitioner appearing in person has been heard for sometime. 2.
She also submits that she faces threat to her life. Let DCP (South West) look
into it and shall provide all possible protection to her in accordance with
law. 3.
List for further arguments on 16.08.2023, the date already fixed. VIKAS
MAHAJAN, J JUNE
1, 2023 MK |
37. The poisoning
has now increased to levels intended to cause serious physical harm and damage,
and even death of the Petitioner. These
poisonous chemical fumes/ gases are being used to render the Petitioner
unconscious. These poisonous chemical fumes are being used to poison the
Petitioner and destroy the Petitioner’s lungs, her airways, her heart, and
other organs and systems of her body. The intent is to murder or to
incapacitate the Petitioner. The Petitioner’s life in in grave and immediate
danger. She again seeks protection by this application. This application is
being made in the interest of justice and this Hon’ble Court has the power to
grant the relief claimed in exercise of its inherent powers to do justice.
Every single day and night, highly corrosive, noxious, poisonous chemical
fumes, pesticides, and smoke are being released into the Petitioner’s premises
with the intent of causing grievous physical injury and which are causing
grievous physical injury.
38 The Petitioner
has been complaining for several years that she is also being targeted with
chemical agents inside the Delhi High Court. The Petitioner is filing a
separate writ petition in this regard. However, the Petitioner has been
targeted with chemical fumes and agents on every hearing of this writ petition and
also on 6 September 2023. She is being
targeted with chemical fumes to obstruct her from arguing her cases. The
targeting with chemical fumes is done before and even during the hearing of the
Petitioner’s cases by persons who are placed close to her.
39. The Petitioner
cannot but mention that even though this Court and the Supreme Court profess
that the Higher Judiciary in India stands with and protects female victims of
sexual assault and sexual harassment, the reality is very different. The test
is how does the Court treat an actual victim of sexual assault/ harassment
appearing before it seeking justice as a litigant. It is unfortunate that
despite being a lawyer, the Petitioner has been begging the Courts to protect
her since 2011 but they have failed her. Why is the Court hesitant to apply the
law and protect a victim even if the accused are powerful lawyers like Soli
Sorabjee and Raian Karanjawala. Why have the Supreme Court and the Delhi High
Court allowed the petitioner to be poisoned since 2011 (when she first sought
protection before a Judge) and for over 12 years now. Who will answer for the
irreparable damage caused to the Petitioner’s organs, body and systems as a
result of such prolonged chronic poisoning? Why is this Court hesitant to even issue
notice in this Petition when it is legally mandated to do so. Why is the
petitioner being denied justice. Why is the court hesitant to issue clear
directions to the Delhi Police and the Government of India to protect the
Petitioner.
40. The Petitioner
is also a whistleblower. She has exposed corruption by General Electric Company
in the Railways Marhowra diesel loco Project which has been covered up. Why is
the Court failing to protect the Petitioner. As they say, the cover-up is worse
than the crime. Forged authority documents were filed for GE (General Electric
Company) in Delhi High Court in Writ Petition Civil 1280/ 2012 (Seema Sapra
versus General Electric Company & Others) in order to sabotage that case
which former GE in-house lawyer Seema Sapra had filed for investigations into
GE and the Manmohan Singh UPA 2 Government's corrupt dealings concerning the
tenders for the Marhowra Diesel Locomotive Factory Project. Montek Singh
Ahluwalia heading the Planning Commission then was involved with GE in corrupt
dealings. This fraud continues to be relevant and important today. The forged
authority documents filed for General Electric Company in Writ Petition Civil
1280/ 2012 in the Delhi High Court constitute a fraud in a tender matter and
under Government of India procurement guidelines, this would disqualify General
Electric Company and all its subsidiaries from participating in any tenders/
procurements of the Government of India including any Defence contracts. This
also makes GE a candidate for blacklisting. This fraud stands proved by the
documents themselves. Thus apart from lawyer Seema Sapra's whistle-blower
corruption complaints against GE, which still lie un-investigated, this fraud
of forged authority documents filed for GE in the Delhi High Court in Writ
Petition Civil 1280/ 2012 disqualifies GE from all Government of India
contracts. And this fraud affects General Electric Company not only in India
but all over the world. The Government of any country could, taking notice of this
fraud, disqualify GE from government contracts according to well-established
legal norms. Legal prosecutions by US authorities, the SEC, the US Department
of Justice, etc., of the persons who jointly committed this fraud would follow.
The Petitioner relies upon her Supreme
Court application [Supreme Court of India I.A. NO. 112422 of 2018 on forged
authority documents for GE filed in Delhi High Court Writ Petition Civil No.
1280/2012] describing with documents how the Indian law firm AZB & Partners acting in collusion with
the US law firm Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher filed forged and fraudulent
authority documents for General Electric Company, GE India Industrial Private
Limited and another Indian subsidiary in the Delhi High Court in Writ Petition
Civil 1280/ 2012. Writ Petition Civil 1280/ 2012 (Seema Sapra versus General
Electric Company & Others) was filed in February 2012 and decided in March
2015. In May 2014, the BJP won the elections and formed the Government under
Narendra Modi. The BJP came to power in 2014 after Narendra Modi, Amit Shah and
Arun Jaitley assured GE and their backers in the US administration of the time,
that the BJP would facilitate the cover-up of GE corruption. As a result even
the Modi Government took no steps against GE and did not pursue the case in
Court. A Delhi High Court Bench headed by Justice Valmiki Mehta wrongly
dismissed Writ Petition Civil 1280/ 2012 (Seema Sapra versus General Electric
Company & Others) as infructuous stating that the impugned tender had been
cancelled but ignoring that a new tender had been issued by the UPA for the
same project in 2013 and GE had bid for the same project. After assuming power
in 2014, the Narendra Modi government awarded the Project contract to GE. Arun
Jaitley was present at the signing of the contract between GE and the
Government of India.
41. The Petitioner
submits that despite her moving the Delhi High Court and the Supreme Court,
instead of passing appropriate orders to at least secure the right to life of
the Petitioner, the courts have time and again passed unlawful, inappropriate
and defective orders, often mis-stating what the Petitioner has submitted or
pleaded and compelling the Petitioner to jump over hurdles instead of getting
protection. Why is the Petitioner being
silenced. Why is the Petitioner being sacrificed to protect certain powerful
entities and individuals. Why is it that
the Court is failing to protect the Petitioner who was being rendered
unconscious in her Rajokri premises for the last three years by chemical fumes
of some incapacitating chemical agent being released deliberately into her
premises. Why is this fact being ignored.
PRAYER
It is, therefore, most respectfully
prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to allow this
Application and:-
1.
Recall Order dated 6 September 2023 in so
far as it directs the filing of a status report by Delhi Police/ Commissioner
of Police/ DCP New Delhi/ any other Police Officer.
2.
Correct Paragraph 1 of Order dated 6
September 2023 in so far as it erroneously refers to the wrong order (the order
of the Hon’ble Supreme Court dated 14.08.2019 modified vide order dated
26.11.2019 in Criminal Appeal Nos.1238/2019 entitled as “Seema Sapra vs. Court
On Its Own Motion”,) instead of the Order in respect of which compliance/
enforcement is sought, i.e., Order dated 1 March 2019 of the Supreme Court
passed in WP CIVIL 13/ 2018 AND WP CIVIL 1027/2018;
3.
Direct the immediate registration of an
FIR by DCP New Delhi on the Petitioner’s complaint that she was abused,
threatened, intimidated, brutally physically assaulted (repeatedly slapped and
punched on her face, head, upper body and dragged on the ground by two
Policemen outside Delhi High Court in the early hours of 1 March 2019 and that
her phone was snatched and returned to her later in the evening of 1 March 2019
in a broken condition with memory card erased and evidence destroyed.
4.
Issue notice in WP Crl. 2469/ 2023 to all
four Respondents so that they can answer the averments made with regard to the
Violation of the Petitioner’s right to life and answer with respect to the
wilful and continued non-compliance with the Supreme Court order dated 1 March
2019 and the failure to comply with the law declared in Lalita Kumari’s case
mandating registration of an FIR in the case of the Petitioner’s complaint of
physical assault reporting the commission of cognizable offences.
5.
Direct all the four Respondents to file
duly affirmed and verified counter affidavits in WP Crl 2469/2023.
6.
Direct Respondent No. 4 (Secretary,
Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India) to immediately provide
protection to the Petitioner.
7.
Direct that the Tilak Marg Police station,
including the SHO and all/ any staff will not be involved with WP Crl 2469/
2023, or with the Petitioner’s complaint of assault on 1 March 2019 or with the
resulting FIR/ Investigation, and nor will they be involved in the filing of
any affidavit/ status report in this case.
8.
Order a Delhi Police vigilance enquiry by
a Joint Commissioner level Police Officer into how Inspector Hankesh Meena of
PS Tilak Marg has appeared in WP Crl 2469/2023 on 31 August 2023 and 6
September 2023 and how he has issued instructions to Additional Standing
Counsel for Delhi Police Mr Amol Sinha.
9.
To direct the Commissioner of Police Mr
Sanjay Arora to have the protection orders dated 1 March 2019 passed in Supreme
Court Writ Petition Civil 13/ 2018 and dated 1 June 2023 passed in Dehi High
Court WP Crl 437/ 2018 complied with forthwith in accordance with law;
10.
To pass such other orders and further
orders as may be deemed necessary on the facts and in the circumstances of the
case.
FOR WHICH ACT OF
KINDNESS, THE PETITIONER SHALL AS IN DUTY BOUND, EVER PRAY.
FILED
BY:
SEEMA
SAPRA
PETITIONER-IN-PERSON
FILED ON: 12
SEPTEMBER 2023
