Delhi High Court
M. Sufian Siddiqui vs The Commissioner Of Police, Delhi on 22 April, 2015
Author: G. Rohini
$~21
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 3934/2015
M. SUFIAN SIDDIQUI ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. M. Sufian Siddiqui, Adv.
(petitioner-in-person) with Mr.
Rakesh Bhugra & Mr. M. Tabish Zia,
Advs.
versus
THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, DELHI ..... Respondent
Through: Ms. Zubeda Begum with Ms. Sana
Ansari & Ms. Vanessa Singh, Advs.
CORAM:
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
ORDER
% 22.04.2015
CM NO.7029/2015 (for exemption)
Allowed, subject to just exceptions.
The application is disposed of.
W.P.(C) 3934/2015
1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, filed as a
Public Interest Litigation (PIL), seeks a direction to the Commissioner of
Police, Delhi "to formulate transparent and pragmatic mechanism of
providing „acknowledgment‟ to the individuals joining investigation in
criminal cases pursuant to the notice received under the Code of Criminal
Procedure". It is the contention of the petitioner that some of the
investigating officers, inspite of persons summoned to join investigation
joining in the investigation, proceed to arrest them falsely alleging that they
had not joined in the investigation. It is argued that if there were to be a
system in place enabling such persons to have acknowledgment of their
joining the investigation, they will be saved from the harassment at the
hands of police officers who threaten such persons with arrest, taking
advantage of such persons inspite of having joined the investigation having
no proof of the same.
2. The petitioner, in the petition, has himself referred to Arnesh Kumar
Vs. State of Bihar (2014) 8 SCC 273 and we are of the view that the cause
sought to be espoused by the petitioner has been sufficiently safeguarded by
the said judgment. Even otherwise, aberration practiced by some of the
police officials cannot be a ground for us to rewrite the Cr.P.C. which
according to the petitioner suffers from this lacuna. We may also notice that
as far as the city of Delhi is concerned, all police stations have CCTVs and
thus the presence of any person summoned to the police station is recorded
and it will not be ordinarily possible for the summoning official to deny that
the person has not attended inspite of being summoned. We may also record
the precaution taken by some persons, so summoned, to have a DD entry
done of their visit. We have in our experience also learnt that the
summoning official, to avoid issuance of fresh summons, generally writes
the date on which presence is next required on the summon itself and which
acts as acknowledgement. If anyone has a specific grievance against any
particular police official, such person has sufficient remedies available to
him in law under the Cr. PC itself. In our opinion, there is no need for this
Court to, in a PIL without even any instances / particulars of any such
aberration, issue any general directions and which may otherwise prejudice /
hamper the investigative powers of the police.
3. Investigation of an offence is the field exclusively reserved for the
police officers, whose powers in that field are unfettered, so long as
legitimately exercised and not abused (see Divine Retreat Centre Vs. State
of Kerala (2008) 3 SCC 542). Supreme Court in D. Venkatasubramaniam
Vs. M.K. Mohan Krishnamachari (2009) 10 SCC 488 reiterated what was
said as far back as in Emperor Vs. Khwaja Nazir Ahamad AIR 1945 PC 18 i.e.
just as it is essential that every one accused of a crime should have free
access to a court of justice, so it is of utmost importance that judiciary
should not interfere with the police in matters which are within their
province and into which the law imposes upon them the duty of enquiry.
4. We, therefore, do not find any ground to entertain this petition filed as
a PIL and dismiss the same.
CHIEF JUSTICE
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J
APRIL 22, 2015
„gsr‟
