DELHI HIGH COURT CLARIFIES REMEDY IN PLEA SEEKING DEPARTMENTAL INQUIRY AGAINST INVESTIGATING OFFICER
In Sanjay Kumar Mall v. State Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors., W.P. (CRL) 3175/2025, the Hon’ble Delhi High Court, per Justice Sanjeev Narula, dealt with a petition seeking initiation of departmental inquiry and suspension of the Investigating Officer for alleged negligence in investigation of FIR No. 411/2025, P.S. Bindapur.
The Court noted that the Trial Court had already directed the Investigating Officer to file a status report and that the matter was listed before the Trial Court. Observing that a judicial mechanism was already in motion, the Hon’ble Court held that if the petitioner is aggrieved by any aspect of the investigation, it is open to him to raise the appropriate grievance before the Magistrate. Accordingly, the writ petition was disposed of along with pending applications, while leaving all rights and contentions open.
Relevant Legal Provision
Section 6, Chapter I, Part H (“The Judgment”) of the Delhi High Court Rules concerning Practice in the Trial of Criminal Cases provides guidance on judicial conduct while referring to police officers:
> “6. Criticism on the conduct of Police and other officers— It is undesirable for Courts to make remarks censuring the action of police officers unless such remarks are strictly relevant of the case. It is to be observed that the Police have great difficulties to contend with in this country, chiefly because they receive little sympathy or assistance from the people in their efforts to detect crime. Nothing can be more disheartening to them than to find that, when they have worked up a case, they are regarded with distrust by the Courts; that the smallest irregularity is magnified into a grave misconduct and that every allegation of ill-usage is readily accepted as true.”That such allegations may sometimes be true it is impossible to deny but on a closer scrutiny they are generally found to be far more often false. There should not be an over-alacrity on the part of Judicial Officers to believe anything and everything against the police; but if it be proved that the police have manufactured evidence by extorting confessions or tutoring witnesses they can hardly be too severely punished. Whenever a Magistrate finds it necessary to make any criticism on the work and conduct of any Government servant, he should send a copy of his judgment to the District Magistrate who will forward a copy of it to the Registrar, High Court, accompanied by a covering letter giving reference to the Home Secretary‟s circular Letter No. 920-J-36/14753, dated the 15th April, 1936.”
Court makes it clear once again that this order in no way undermines the majesty of the Court or the fact that the judicial directions need to be obeyed by the police officials concerned and the power of the courts to pass orders pointing out their disobedience or point out any fault in investigation, etc, cannot be questioned, however, in this regard, Section 6 of Chapter 1, Part H („The Judgment‟) of the Delhi High Court Rules for “Practice in the Trial of Criminal Cases” needs to be kept in mind and also the judicial precedents of the Hon‟ble Apex Court and the High Court have to be kept in mind as guiding force while passing such remarks which amount to strictures
Supporting Judicial Precedents
1. Dr. Dilip Kumar Deka & Anr. v. State of Assam & Anr., (1996) 6 SCC 234
The Hon’ble Supreme Court, referring to State of U.P. v. Mohd. Naim [AIR 1964 SC 703], laid down tests to be applied while expunging disparaging remarks against authorities:
1. Whether the person whose conduct is questioned had an opportunity to explain;
2. Whether evidence on record justifies the remarks; and
3. Whether such remarks are necessary for deciding the case.
2. Rakesh Chand v. State, 2015 SCC OnLine Del 14193
The Delhi High Court held that even if there was a lapse by police officers, the proper course for a trial court is to record the lapse and caution against its recurrence, not to direct superior authorities to take departmental action.
3. State v. Yogender Singh, 2015 SCC OnLine Del 14203
A coordinate Bench of the Delhi High Court expunged directions for disciplinary action against investigating officers, observing that while a judge may record dissatisfaction regarding investigation, directing administrative authorities to act against police personnel encroaches upon executive functions.
As observed by Hon‟ble Supreme Court as well by this Court in catena of judgments, it is impermissible in law to pass such sweeping remarks against police officers, and direct higher authorities to take action against them. In case of any lapse or irregularity, the concerned court can record such lapse and indicate future course of action, but passing disparaging remarks affecting the career of a public servant must not be the course to be adopted.