Shakti Vahini vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi & Ors.
2013 Latest Caselaw 4970 Del

$~14.
*     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+       W.P.(CRL) 444/2013.
        SHAKTI VAHINI                                      ..... Petitioner
                           Through :    Mr.Ashok K. Singh, Adv. with Mr.Ravi
                                        Kant, President of petitioner NGO.

                           versus

        GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS.                ..... Respondents
                      Through : Mr.Dayan Krishnan, Addl. Standing
                                counsel for the State with Ms.Manvi
                                Priya, Adv.
                                Mr.S.B.K. Singh, Jt.C.P./Crime,
                                Mr.Kumar Gyanesh, DCP/Crime and
                                Mr.V.K. Dham, ACP/Crime.
                                Mr.R.N. Vats, Mr.Nishant Sharma and
                                Ms.Madhu Saini, Advs. for respondent
                                no.3 along with respondent no.3.
        CORAM:
        HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI
                           ORDER

%                          29.10.2013

CRL.M.A.14181/2013

1. Application stands dismissed as not pressed.

W.P.(CRL) 444/2013.

2. Present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner, which is an NGO, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 Cr.P.C., inter alia, praying that investigation be conducted by an independent Government agency along with a senior officer of Deputy Commissioner of Police level from Crime Branch, Delhi Police, under the supervision of the High Court. The petitioner seeks a direction to set aside the order dated 23.2.2013 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge in Session Case No.43/2013 by which it was directed that an

investigation be carried out by an officer not less than the rank of Inspector.

3. The prayer made in this petition was duly considered by this Court. In the order dated 20.3.2013 it was observed by this Court that the counsel for the petitioner did not have any objection with respect to an enquiry being conducted, as directed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, but prayed that the enquiry should be held in a fair and impartial manner and that too by some high official of the crime branch, who is entrusted with the job of looking after the Anti-Human Trafficking Wing of the Crime Branch. Consequent to this submission, an order was passed for conducting an enquiry. Relevant portion of the order dated 20.3.2013 reads as under:

"As per the petitioners, they have no grievance with setting up of an enquiry against them but the only grievance is that such an enquiry should be conducted by the DCP (Crime Branch) who is in-charge of human trafficking cell and not by the District Investigation Unit and that too at the level of Inspector. Considering the fact that the concern of the learned trial court was to find out the truth and more particularly the fact, whether the petitioners have in any manner misused and abused the process of law in compelling and intimidating the prosecutrix to falsely implicate Mr. Rajan Sahni, therefore, without interfering with the observations made by the learned trial court in the impugned order, this court is inclined to modify the said order only to the extent of directing the investigation to be conducted by the DCP(Crime Branch) who is in- charge of anti-human trafficking unit. It is also directed that the investigation to be conducted by the said DCP shall be monitored by the concerned Joint Commissioner of Police, Crime Branch. The concerned DCP if feels appropriate may also take the assistance of National Commission for Protection of Child Rights and also take into consideration the complaint dated 10.11.2012 made by the petitioner NGO to the SHO, P.S. Punjabi Bagh, wherein the petitioner NGO has levelled the allegations against some police officials and private persons pressuring the aunt of the victim and offering money for closing the said case.

The report shall be filed by the concerned DCP within a period of three months from the date of this order before the concerned trial court. With the above directions, the present petition stands disposed of.

It is ordered accordingly."

4. The enquiry was conducted and after seeking one extension a final report was to be submitted by the concerned DCP within a period of three months before the concerned trial court.

5. In the order dated 31.7.2013 the Additional Sessions Judge has observed that she was not inclined to consider the final report as there was gross violation of the order passed by the Delhi High Court and the matter was sent to the Delhi High Court for taking further action in the matter. The learned trial court has further observed that the sealed envelope containing the final report shows that the I.O. has been mentioned as ACP Vijay Kumar Dham, however, the report has been forwarded by Sh. Gyanesh, Additional DCP; five files were annexed along with the final report; and on perusal of the final report filed on behalf of the Crime Branch the trial court found that not a single document indicated that the investigation had been conducted by the Joint Commissioner of Police or the Additional Deputy Commissioner of Police, nor was there anything to suggest that the monitoring had been done by the Joint Commissioner of Police. The trial court also took into consideration that since there was a specific direction that the enquiry was to be conducted by the Deputy Commissioner of Police and that the report suggested otherwise, this matter has been put up before this Court.

6. Mr.Ravi Kant, President of Shakti Vahini, petitioner, who is also an advocate, is present in Court along with his counsel. Learned counsel for respondent no.3 is also present in Court. Counsel for the petitioner and

respondent no.3 submit that they may not agree with the findings of the enquiry but they have no grievance as far as the manner in which the enquiry has been conducted.

7. Mr.Krishnan, learned Additional Standing counsel for the State, who is present along with the concerned officers, being Joint Commissioner of Police, Deputy Commissioner of Police and the Assistant Commissioner of Police, has made a categorical assertion before this Court that there has been no wilful violation of any direction passed by Delhi High Court. He further submits that the orders passed by the High Court were taken with utmost seriousness which is evident from the fact that the entire enquiry was conducted by the Special Investigation Agency (SIT) of the Crime Branch, which is headed by a Deputy Commissioner of Police and the Crime Branch is headed by a Joint Commissioner of Police. It is also submitted that there is no doubt that the enquiry report has been signed by the Assistant Commissioner of Police but the same has been forwarded by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Crime Branch. While relying on the Guard File, original of which has been produced in Court and a photocopy thereof has been placed on record, it is submitted by Mr.Krishnan that the monitoring of the enquiry was carried out by the Deputy Commissioner of Police as also by the Additional Commissioner of Police and the Joint Commissioner of Police.

8. Attention of this Court has also been drawn by Mr.Krishnan to page 45 of the reply, which is part of the guard file, wherein it is mentioned that as many as 17 directions have been issued to the Investigating Officer by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Crime Branch on 17.4.2013. Attention of the Court has also been drawn to pages 57, 58 and part of page 59 of the reply (also part of the guard file) where a note has been made by Additional Deputy Commissioner of Police/Crime (N) in his own

handwriting, which reads as under:

"May see the progress of investigation above. The prosecutrix have been examined as many as 8 doctors have been examined. CWC officials have been examined. Some of complaint, i.e. Nina Verma and aunt of prosecutrix have been examined.

The prosecutrix have stuck to her stand that she made allegations of rape on advice of Divya Rawat, representative of Shakti Vahini.

Investigation to be done.

- A team has to be sent to Assam to examine the mother of prosecutrix.

- NGO officials have to be examined.

- Verification of stamp has to be done through FSL.

Judgment was received on 13.4.13 and file on 16.4.13. Actual period of investigation is actually 1 ½ months. Order of judgment of High Court is 20/3/13. I.O. ACP V.K. Dham expressed that 2 more months is needed to finish the investigation. If approved, we may seek time of 2 more months from trial court. The date of submission of supplementary charge sheet is 15/6/13.

Submitted for kind perusal and orders.

30.5.2013 As discussed, we have to carefully examine the inmates of Nirmal Chhaya and the co-maid.

May like to see pl. (Spl. Above reg. 2 months extension of time.)

31/5/2013

Jt.CP/Crime

Please discuss on 10/6/13 at 1 PM.

Addl.CP/Crime

Discussed with ACP/Sh.V. K. Dham. Please examine the applicability of Sec 388/389 IPC and put up status report by 14/6/13

Addl. CP/Crime ADCP/N ACP/AKS

 As the investigation was entrusted to crime Branch on 16.04.13, hence we may file status report containing the investigation conducted so far in the court on 19.06.13.  A draft status report is placed for kind perusal.  The inmates of Nirmal Chayya and co-maid has been examined.

 As regards applicability of Section 388/389 IPC, the same will be discussed with prosecution branch after completion of investigation.

ADDL CP/CRIME

May pl see p. 14 of status report (flagged) wherein he investigation yet to be conducted and request for extension of two months more for completion of investigation.

17.6.13

Jt.CP/Crime"

9. The second noting dated 31.5.2013 is also of the Additional Commissioner of Police.

10. Subsequently on 7.6.2013 the Additional Commissioner of Police/Crime has made a noting which says „pleas discuss on 10.6.2013 at 1.00 p.m‟. Further notings would show that the matter was in fact discussed with the

Joint Commissioner of Police by the ACP, DCP and Addl. CP.

11. At page 60 is the noting of ACP, which has been marked to the DCP and thereafter the DCP has marked the same to the Additional Commissioner, which he thereafter marked to the Jt.C.P. Page 60 onwards till page 65 are also hand written notings of DCP, Additional DCP and Joint C.P.

12. Mr.Krishnan submits that it seems that the Guard file was not brought to the notice of the trial court and thus the trial court was rightly misled that the enquiry was conducted by the ACP and the order of the High Court was not complied with.

13. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, respondent no.3 and also Mr.Krishnan. I have also carefully perused the original guard file (photocopy of which has been placed on record). After the order passed by Delhi High Court the matter was referred to SIT which by itself would show that the directions were taken seriously. Thereafter directions issued by the DCP shows that the entire monitoring was being done by the DCP and other senior officers. The file noting shows that the DCP had issued instructions and directions. There are notings of the Additional Commissioner of Police and Joint Commissioner of Police, which shows close monitoring by them and it cannot be said that the order of the High Court was not followed in letter and spirit.

14. In my view the order of the High Court has not been violated in any manner and it seems that the trial court has formed this impression only on account of the fact that the report has been signed by the ACP and as the guard file was not produced before the trial court. The counsel for the petitioner and respondent no.3 have also expressed their satisfaction in manner the enquiry has been conducted, although they do not agree with the finding. In view thereof no further orders are required to be passed in the present matter and the same may be placed before the trial court, who

shall consider the same, in terms of the order dated 20.3.2013, in accordance with law unaffected by any observation made by this Court in these proceedings. Notice of contempt discharged.

G.S.SISTANI, J OCTOBER 29, 2013 msr