Further, The Court held that the prosecution failed to prove the charge beyond reasonable doubt; applying the benefit of doubt, it found conscious possession not established and acquitted the accused.
.png)
Call Us Now
Further, The Court held that the prosecution failed to prove the charge beyond reasonable doubt; applying the benefit of doubt, it found conscious possession not established and acquitted the accused.
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.
The Delhi High Court in Brij Pal v. Union of India & Ors. (W.P.(C) 12418/2025) directed the Government of NCT of Delhi and the Union of India to ensure immediate medical treatment for an injured e-rickshaw operator who was denied proper care at DDU and Safdarjung Hospitals after a serious accident; the Court emphasized that denial of timely healthcare violates the fundamental right to life under Article 21, thereby reaffirming the duty of government hospitals to provide urgent treatment to every citizen in need.
I have filed a petition before the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi, wherein the High Court observed the repeated delays in trial and directed the concerned Dwarka Trial Court to conclude the proceedings within four months.
In Vaish Chandrashan Cooperative Society Ltd vs. Arun Kumar Mehta (W.P.(CRL) 2311/2025), the petitioner sought a speedy trial of its complaint under the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 after nearly two years of delays caused by repeated adjournments and non-compliance by the accused. The accused had even faced non-bailable warrants and fines, which remain unpaid.
Citing the principle “Justice delayed is justice denied”, the Court reiterated that the right to a speedy trial is a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, as upheld in landmark cases like Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar and P. Ramachandra Rao v. State of Karnataka. The order affirms that procedural tactics cannot be allowed to frustrate justice, especially in cheque bounce matters where legislative intent demands swift resolution.
This decision sends a clear message. courts will step in to ensure timely justice and uphold public faith in the judicial process.
In a recent matter before the Delhi High Court, I had the privilege of representing the petitioner in W.P.(CRL) 1495/2024 – Suday Shankar Jha v. State of NCT of Delhi. The case highlights an important issue of delay in criminal investigations, where despite the registration of an FIR on 19 February 2020 concerning execution of a sale deed in Najafgarh, the Investigating Officer had failed to file the charge sheet even after four years.
Faced with this inordinate delay, we approached the Hon’ble High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution read with Section 482 CrPC, seeking judicial intervention for expeditious action. Upon notice, the learned ASC for the State, on instructions from the Investigating Officer, submitted that the investigation was at the final stage and assured the Court that the charge sheet would be filed within eight weeks. The Court recorded this assurance and disposed of the petition while granting liberty to the petitioner to approach again in case of any further grievance.
