"If Officers Start To Act Like This...": Court Slams Cop For "Serious Misconduct"

A sessions court has slammed a Delhi Police official for "serious misconduct" in getting a man, accused of raping a minor, released from jail by "misguiding" a magisterial court.

Directing the appearance of the deputy commissioner of police (DCP) concerned to explain the investigating officer's (IOs) actions, the court observed that her conduct showed that she was "hand in glove with the accused".

Additional Sessions Judge Amit Sahrawat said an application was filed by Sub-Inspector Anjali Panwar, the IO, under section 169 (release of accused when evidence deficient) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).

The accused was arrested under section 6 (aggravated penetrative sexual assault) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act and the penal provision for rape, the judge noted.

But as there were two statements from the minor victim -- one that said the accused established physical relations with her and the other retracting the first statement -- the present court did not consider the IO's application, observing that the authenticity of the statements can only be decided through a trial, he said.

In an order dated July 10, the court said, "Further, it was also told to the IO that if, as per her, no offence is made out, then she should file the cancellation report in the form of a chargesheet and the same shall be considered as per law." The IO, however, "misguided" a first class judicial magistrate's (FCJMs) court by filing the same application before it, the court said.

It noted that the woman sub-inspector did not inform the magistrate that the sessions court, which was competent to deal with the POCSO matter, had refused to consider the application.

It said another "startling fact" was that after the superior court returned the application, she again got an additional statement of the victim recorded and submitted it before the magistrate.

"If the IO was to record the second statement of the victim under CrPC section 164 (recording of confessions and statements), then she was supposed to do so before moving the application under section 169 of the CrPC before this court and this conduct shows that the IO got the second statement recorded so that the accused could be released from judicial custody anyhow," the court said.

"This conduct of the IO is not normal and it seems that she was adamant to get the accused released from judicial custody on that very day," it added.

The court said the IO had approached a court that was incompetent to deal with the alleged offence and this was "a blunder" on her part.

According to law, magisterial courts can try criminal matters where the minimum punishment is less than three years of imprisonment.

It said the action of the police official could not be taken lightly as it was "a serious misconduct" on her part and her conduct was "sufficient enough to show that she was working hand in glove with the accused".

"The conduct of the IO, being a police officer, is required to be brought within the knowledge of senior authorities of the police department. If police officers start to act like this, then it is a serious threat to the interests of victims/complainants who approach police officials with hope for justice," the court said, directing the DCP, Rohini to appear before it and explain the IO's conduct.

The court also issued a notice to the victim and the accused for their appearances.

The court has posted the matter on Tuesday for "arguments on the legality" of the magisterial court's order directing the accused's release.

(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by NDTV staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)