Read Time: 04 minutes
The court acknowledged that the accused sub-inspector was acting within the scope of his official duties when he filed the chargesheet and granted him relief accordingly.
A Delhi Court recently canceled an order for First Information Report (FIR) against a police sub-inspector, who was allegedly involved in a scuffle over car parking in the city. The court cited Section 140 of the Delhi Police Act which provides protection to police officers from prosecution while performing their duties.
Additional Sessions Judge Shivaji Anand at Rohini Court was hearing the revision petition, which challenged a Magistrate court's order that had directed registration of an FIR against the sub-inspector and a retired ACP among other accused persons on a complaint.
The complainant had alleged that on March 20, 2015, he asked one of the accused in the group, who was allegedly drinking alcohol inside a car, to move the vehicle as it was parked in an obstructive manner. Following this, a scuffle took place and the group assaulted him.
The complainant further alleged that the police did not accept his complaint, and the accused sub-inspector pressurized him to withdraw it. The police have also filed an FIR against the complainant.
Advocate Vineet Jindal, who appeared for the police officer, argued that legal provisions applicable to the police officials under Section 140 of the DP Act protect the sub-inspector from prosecution.
Jindal stated that the sub-inspector did everything required for a fair investigation, as he had conducted a medical examination of both parties, which revealed that one person suffered simple injuries, while the complainant and his father had no fresh external injuries at the time of medical examination.
While hearing the case, the court also reviewed the CCTV footage of the incident and found that the vehicle was parked in an inappropriate manner. The court acknowledged that the accused sub-inspector was acting within the scope of his official duties when he filed the chargesheet and granted him relief accordingly. However, the retired ACP was not in the line of duty, and the court determined that he and others involved in the incident were not entitled to any relief. The court stated that the Magistrate's order was justified, and there were no issues of infirmity, illegality, or impropriety in the case concerning them.
Case Status: Manmohan Ahuja Vs. State & Anr
Please Login or Register
