The Delhi High Court has stayed the trial court’s direction for the registration of an FIR against the police officials of Dwarka District. The court had given direction for registration of FIR after considering the complaints by three accused in three different cases who had alleged that they were shot in the knee by the police.

The Additional Deputy Commissioner of Police (DCP) had challenged the order of the trial court before the High Court.

Justice Yogesh Khanna stayed the order passed by the trial court till the next date of hearing in view of the contention raised by the Delhi Police.

The bench has also directed to issue notice to three accused persons namely Deepak Chauhan, Bablu and Aijaj through all modes, including email/WhatsApp returnable on September 15, 2022. On Monday, no counsel appeared for the accused.

The High Court had reserved orders on the petitions moved by the police challenging an order passed by the trial court granting bail to three accused and directing the Magistrate Court to register an FIR against the police personnel of Dwarka District.

The Delhi Police had stated that any direction to lodge an FIR against honest officers, acting bona fide to police a crime-ridden district is not only perverse but also violates the rights of those officers under the Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and be set aside.

The Additional DCP, Dwarka District has challenged the order passed by the Court of Additional Session Judge, Dwarka Court on 24 March 2022.

Additional Standing Counsel for Delhi Police, Avi Singh, had argued that the trial court clubbed three separate FIRs related to separate cases, and through a common order granted bail to all accused without considering their antecedents, recoveries or the scope of their involvement in the crime.

“The joinder of three distinct cases is beyond the mandate of Section 223 Code of Criminal Procedure,” he said.

Avi Singh had also argued the trial court judge stepped beyond the jurisdictional mandate of the Code of Criminal Procedure and directed that the handwritten complaint filed in the bail application unsupported by affidavit be converted into Section 156(3) complaints and put up before the Metropolitan Magistrate (MM).

The Counsel for Delhi Police had further argued that the trial court judge erred by recording adverse findings against the raiding party on the basis of an ipse dixit (unproven) statement by the accused, and entirely prejudging the case against the Police.
It was also argued that without recommending the matter for a vigilance enquiry or to the jurisdictional police complaints authority, the trial court judge virtually directed the MM to register an FIR against the police officials, which is entirely dehors (outside the scope of) the mandate of Section 156 (3) Code of Criminal Procedure and against the principle of separation of powers underlined in the Constitution of India and the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Additional Standing Counsel had argued that the Additional Sessions Judge erred in law by seeking the registration of FIR without considering that a prior sanction under Section 140 of the Delhi Police Act is required for initiating an investigation under Section 156 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

The trial court while granting bail to accused Deepak Chauhan, Bablu and Aijaj had noted that accused Irshad, Aijaj, Deepak Chauhan, Bablu and Sachin had gunshot injuries in their knees while they were trying to flee after firing at the police party in different cases on different dates in 2021. (ANI)