Delhi High Court
Ajay Gautam vs Union Of India & Ors on 15 January, 2020
$~6
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 15th January, 2020
+ W.P.(C) 2865/2018 & CM APPL. 11582/2018
AJAY GAUTAM ..... Petitioner
Through: Petitioner in person
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Vikram Jetly, CGSC for UOI/R-1
Mr. Satyakam, ASC for GNCTD/R-2
and R-3
CORAM:
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.HARI SHANKAR
ORDER
% 15.01.2020
D.N. PATEL, CHIEF JUSTICE (ORAL)
W.P.(C) 2865/2018
1. This so-called Public Interest Litigation has been preferred with the
following prayers:
"(i) Allow the present Writ Petition;
(ii) Issue an appropriate writ, orders or direction for declare the
procedure being followed by Delhi Police (Respondent No.3) with
regards to inquires/ investigations made in pursuant to order passed by
Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate under Section 156(3) of Code of Criminal
Procedure for submitting Action Taken Report being arbitrary, illegal
and ultra virus, in the interest of justice and equity;
(iii) Issue an appropriate writ, orders or appropriate direction to
the No.1 (Ministry of Law and Justice), Respondent No.2(State Govt. of
NCT of Delhi ) Respondent No.3 ( Delhi Police ) for issue appropriate
guidelines or frame appropriate procedure to deal with the application
filed under section 156/(3) Cr.P.C. with regards to power of
Investigating Officer, functioning of Ld. Subordinate Court, what is the
maximum time period for filing action taken Report , what is the
maximum time period for decide application filed under section 156(3)
Cr.P.C.
(iii). Pass any other or further order which this Hon'ble Court
may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case
in the interest of justice."
2. It is submitted by the petitioner in person that the procedures being
followed by the trial court and the exercise of powers by the Police in
matters relating to conducting a preliminary inquiry and investigations is in
violation of law laid down by the Supreme Court in Lalita Kumari v. Govt.
of U.P., (2014) 2 SCC 1 and State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal & Ors., 1992
Supp (1) SCC 335.
3. This writ petition essentially ventilates the grievance of the petitioner
himself and cannot, therefore, strictly speaking, be treated as a public interest
litigation. However, we note that the petitioner had approached this Court, in
his personal capacity in W.P.(Crl.) 318/2018 (Ajay Gautam v. Union of
India) and that a learned Single Judge of this Court had, vide order dated 2nd
February, 2018, opined that the litigation was more in the nature of public
interest litigation and had, therefore, directed that the matter be listed before
the appropriate Bench, as per Roster, dealing with PILs.
4. As such, we do not propose to enter into this issue.
5. The grievance of the petitioner, essentially, is that, as per the judgment
of the Supreme Court in Lalita Kumari supra and Bhajan Lal supra, if a
complaint, lodged with the police, discloses a cognizable offence, an FIR is
required to be registered forthwith, whereas, if the complaint discloses a non-
cognizable offence, the police is required to conduct a preliminary inquiry,
before registering the FIR.
6. The petitioner contends that the said preliminary inquiry cannot
partake the character of an investigation.
7. The petitioner submits that, in respect of two complaints, filed against
the petitioner and his wife, inquiry was directed by the learned Metropolitan
Magistrate, and that the petitioner and his wife are being subjected to
needless harassment, by the police, in the course of the said inquiry. He
submits that the said inquiry proceedings are investigative in nature, which is
contrary to the decisions in Lalita Kumari supra and Bhajan Lal supra.
8. According to the petitioner, the said inquiry, which is relatable to
Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is only intended to
ascertain whether, on the allegations, a cognizable offence is, or is not, made
out, and cannot involve any investigative exercise.
9. Founded on these allegations, the petitioner has suggested guidelines,
for conducting of inquiries, by the police, under Section 156 (3) of the Code
of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and prays, by this writ petition, that the said
guidelines be made mandatory.
10. Having heard the petitioner in person and learned counsel for the
respondents, it appears that the grievance ventilated in this writ petition is
with respect to various procedures being followed in the trial court by the
court of learned Metropolitan Magistrate and subsequently inquiry and
investigations being carried out by the Delhi Police in a complaint case.
11. Moreover, the petitioner in person is seeking several directions and
guidelines to be issued by this Court to the trial court as well as to the Delhi
Police for conducting preliminary inquiry in a complaint case, in accordance
with law laid down by the Supreme Court in Lalita Kumari supra and
Bhajan Lal supra.
12. We are not inclined to direct framing of any guidelines, to govern the
exercise of conducting of inquiry by the police, whether under Section
156 (3) Cr.P.C., or otherwise.
13. The judgments of the Supreme Court in Lalita Kumari supra and
Bhajan Lal supra declare the legal position, under Article 141 of the
Constitution of India, with more than sufficient clarity and it would be
presumptuous, of this Court, therefore to authorise the framing of guidelines,
to effectuate the implementation of the judgments of the Supreme Court.
14. That apart, if the petitioner, or his wife, are aggrieved by the
proceedings being conducted by the police, in their individual cases, the
remedy lies elsewhere, and not in this public interest litigation.
15. Hence, there is no substance in this writ petition and the same is
dismissed.
CM APPL. 11582/2018
1. In view of the order passed in the writ petition, this application stands
disposed of.
CHIEF JUSTICE
C.HARI SHANKAR, J.
JANUARY 15, 2020
dsn
