TARA CHAND Vs. GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) There are three petitioners in this writ petition. On the date of incident which took place on 08.02.2004, the petitioner No.1 was a tenant in premises bearing House No.68, Extn.-II, Ground Floor, Nangloi, New Delhi. Respondent No.7 was the landlady and owner of the said property. On that day, the respondent No.7 had lodged a complaint with the police of Police Station Nangloi against petitioner No.1 that he had stolen Rs.50,000/- from her house.

(2.) It is stated that petitioner no.2 was the assistant of petitioner No.1 and petitioner No.3 was his neighbour. The respondents No.4 and 5 who are the officials of Police Station Nangloi are alleged to had misbehaved with the petitioners and it is further alleged that they were beaten also by the police on that day without registration of any FIR on the complaint of Respondent No.7. Aggrieved by the said misbehaviour of the police, the instant writ petition was filed by the petitioners wherein following prayers have been made:-

(3.) In response to notice of this writ petition, status report has been filed on behalf of respondents No.1 to 3. This Court vide its order passed on 14.09.2004 directed the DCP (Vigilance) to hold an inquiry into the allegations alleged against respondents no.4 and 5 with regard to their alleged misbehaviour with the petitioners. It was directed that in case it is found that the respondents no. 4 and 5 had acted in a high-handed manner, appropriate action be taken against them. Pursuant to the said order passed by this Court, a vigilance inquiry was held regarding the incident that took place on 08.02.2004 The learned Standing Counsel for the State has submitted that the vigilance report suggested a censure to be issued against respondent No.4 being the SHO of the Police Station and accordingly a recordable warning has been issued against respondent No. 4 by which he was advised to be careful in future. In so far as respondent No. 5 is concerned, the Vigilance Report recommended departmental inquiry to be initiated against him. The learned Standing Counsel has submitted that as directed in the Vigilance report, regular departmental proceedings were initiated against respondent No. 5 but in regular inquiry, he has not been found guilty of the charge alleged against him. However, at the end of the inquiry, respondent No.5 has also been warned to be careful in future while dealing with such matters.