Investigation: Transfer of investigation to Central Agency – FIR No.58 of 2018 filed by the petitioner against respondent no.7Police Officer alleging that respondent no.7 took undue advantage of her situation and had forcible intercourse with her – Writ of Mandamus filed by the petitioner seeking directions that the investigation arising out said FIR be transferred from Delhi Police to an independent Central Agency – Held: The investigation into the crime registered pursuant to FIR No.58 of 2018 was conducted by a Special Investigation Team and a charge-sheet has been filed – The apprehension that was expressed at some stage that the mobile phones belonging to Respondent No.7 were not being taken in custody, was dealt with and it was ensured that said mobiles were taken into custody of the investigating agency – The data from those mobiles was also sought to be recovered and Respondent No.7 did extend cooperation in ensuring that the data could be retrieved – However, the assertion on behalf of the petitioner was that complete data was not retrieved – Both the mobile phones were also sent for forensic analysis – It was suggested by the petitioner that certain pictures may have been taken by Respondent No.7, which data is not presently available – However, extracts from iCloud was fully available with the investigating agency – The contention that the mobile phone of the Investigating Officer was damaged may not be material as details of any conversation between the petitioner and the Investigating Officer, may also be proved through the mobile phone of the petitioner herself – There was thus, nothing substantial which could either show that the investigation was not well directed or had failed to look into a particular direction – Therefore, nothing further is required to be done – Petitioner is directed that if any video or audio recordings are still being retained by her, same may be handed over to the Special Investigation Team – It is left to the Special Investigation Team to consider whether that part needs to be dealt with in the supplementary charge-sheet which, is contemplated to be filed.
Investigation: Transfer of investigation to Central Agency – FIR filed by the mother of Respondent no.7 that the petitioner and her family members had been pressurising the family of respondent no.7 to pay a sum of Rs.15 lakhs failing which they were threatened with filing of cases with allegations of rape and other criminal cases against respondent no.7 – Writ of Mandamus filed by the petitioner seeking directions that the investigation arising out the FIR filed by the mother of respondent no.7 be transferred to an independent Central Agency; that the Investigating Agency to immediately collect Call Detail Records of the mobile numbers and confiscate the two mobile phones of the accused and to retrieve the CCTV footage of the hotel where the accused took her to commit the offence of rape; that protection to the petitioner and her family members be given – Held: As regards the crime registered pursuant to FIR lodged by the mother of Respondent No.7, protection was afforded to the petitioner and her family members and the application under s.438 of the Code was also dealt with – An application filed by the petitioner under s.482 of the Code is also pending with the High Court – Thus, petitioner invoked the processes of the court and was afforded adequate protection – No reason to transfer the investigation to any other agency.
Contempt of court: In FIR No. 314, as well as in the application preferred thereafter, insinuation was made by petitioner that Respondent No.7 had arranged attack on her and was responsible for the incident wherein she was hit by a car – However, CCTV footage showed that she was not hit by a car but by a thela (rickshaw) which prima facie meant that the allegations in her sworn statement before the Court were not truthful – Making a false statement on oath is an offence punishable under s.181 of the IPC while furnishing false information with intent to cause public servant to use his lawful power to the injury of another person is punishable under s.182 of the IPC – These offences by virtue of s.195(1)(a)(i) of the Code can be taken cognizance of by any court only upon a proper complaint in writing as stated in said Section – In the circumstances, a notice is required to be issued to the petitioner in suo motu exercise of power of this Court “why action in contempt be not initiated against her and why appropriate direction be not passed under s.195(1)(a)(i) of the Code” – Registry directed to register the matter as suo motu proceedings – Penal Code, 1860 – ss.181, 182 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.195(1)(a)(i).
Pushpadevi M. Jatia v. M.L. Wadhawan etc. (1987) 3 SCC 367 : [1987] 3 SCR 46; Chandra Shashi v. Anil Kumar Verma (1995) 1 SCC 421 : [1994] 5 Suppl. SCR 465; K.D. Sharma v. Steel Authority of India Limited and others (2008) 12 SCC 481 : [2008] 10 SCR 454; Dhananjay Sharma v. State of Haryana and others (1995) 3 SCC 757 : [1995] 3 SCR 964 – relied on
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.