A Delhi court slammed the Investigating Officer for filing a false report to mislead the court and ordered departmental action against the Delhi Police, including the ACP and SHO, citing gross negligence and supervisory lapses in handling the probe.
A Delhi court directed departmental action against an Investigating Officer (IO) for failing to properly investigate a criminal case and for submitting a misleading report.
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Tushar Gupta, presiding at a Karkardooma court, stated,
“This court deems fit to issue notice to the Joint Commissioner of Police to take appropriate action against the IO for filing a false report in the present case… and not investigating the case properly, and file (a) compliance report.“
A compliance report detailing the measures taken against the officer is expected by November 3, when the court will revisit the issue. The court also mandated action against the Assistant Commissioner of Police (ACP) and the Station House Officer (SHO) due to their supervisory failings.
The proceedings were in response to a bail application by Mustakeem, who found himself involved in a gunfight between two groups. Mustakeem alleged that he was wrongfully accused after he approached the police to report an attack on him and his family by 6-7 assailants.
Subsequently, the police filed a First Information Report (FIR) based on a complaint from Mustakeem’s father. However, they also initiated a cross-FIR from another individual, who accused Mustakeem of discharging a firearm outside his house, claiming that the incident followed a confrontation.
The IO asserted that Mustakeem was apprehended based on information from a confidential informant. However, the court pointed out that CCTV footage confirmed Mustakeem had gone to the police station to file his complaint, a fact that the IO acknowledged during the bail hearing.
The court remarked,
“Thus, it can very well be said that the IO has filed a false report in this matter to mislead the court,”
The court further observed that the IO failed to include relevant sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) in the FIR based on Mustakeem’s father’s complaint. It noted that the father had sustained serious injuries from the assailants, yet the appropriate legal sections were not incorporated into the FIR.
Additionally, the court found discrepancies between the account in Mustakeem’s father’s original complaint and the FIR that was ultimately registered. It highlighted that the individuals named in the FIR filed by Mustakeem’s father had not been arrested, while Mustakeem was detained for similar charges after seeking police assistance.
The court concluded that the investigation was inadequately conducted. Although these issues might have typically resulted in granting bail to the accused, the court acknowledged the serious nature of the allegations against Mustakeem. CCTV footage indicated that he was seen running with a desi katta (country-made firearm) near the complainant’s residence.
Given the gravity of the charges, the court denied Mustakeem’s bail application. Additional Public Prosecutor Kamal Kapoor represented the State, while Advocate Javed Ali defended the accused.
Case Title: State Vs. Mustakeem