'Blatant Disregard to Duty': Delhi High Court Orders Disciplinary Inquiry Against Police Officials for Failing to Register FIR in Suspicious Death Case
Kiran Raj
The Delhi High Court, in a judgment pronounced on March 10, 2025, by a Single Bench of Justice Neena Bansal Krishna addressed petitions filed by the State of NCT of Delhi challenging disciplinary actions ordered against senior police officials. The case arose from judicial scrutiny over the alleged mishandling of an unnatural death investigation by the Delhi Police, leading to directives for a disciplinary inquiry against the involved officers.
The petitions stemmed from judicial orders directing disciplinary action against police officials following their alleged inaction in the investigation of the death of Vichal Jain. The deceased was found hanging under mysterious circumstances in his rented residence in Delhi on February 9, 2014. His mother, Trishla Jain, alleged foul play and contended that her son had sustained multiple ante-mortem injuries, including injuries caused by sharp and pointed objects, suggesting homicide rather than suicide.
Despite her repeated complaints, the Delhi Police failed to register an FIR. On February 15, 2014, she formally lodged a complaint with the Commissioner of Police, requesting the registration of a murder case, yet no formal investigation commenced. The police instead maintained that they were conducting a preliminary inquiry into the matter and obtaining opinions from forensic experts and doctors regarding the injuries sustained by the deceased. Frustrated with the inaction, she approached the court seeking intervention.
On August 4, 2014, Trishla Jain filed a complaint under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, accompanied by an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., seeking a court directive for the registration of an FIR and investigation. The application was dismissed by the Metropolitan Magistrate on October 20, 2015, citing lack of sufficient grounds to order an FIR. This prompted her to file a revision petition before the Sessions Court.
The Additional Sessions Judge, upon examination, set aside the magistrate’s order and directed the police to register an FIR under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, within two weeks and proceed with an investigation under the supervision of an officer not below the rank of Inspector. FIR No. 216/2016 was eventually registered at P.S. Sarai Rohilla, Delhi. The Sessions Court further observed serious lapses in the conduct of the investigating officers and directed the Ministry of Home Affairs to take appropriate disciplinary action against the officials responsible for the delay.
The police officials challenged these disciplinary directives before the High Court, arguing that the Sessions Court had erred in making such observations and that there were no grounds for taking disciplinary action against them.
The Delhi High Court examined the conduct of the police in the matter and noted that the police had failed to act despite clear indications of a cognizable offense. The court observed:
"The deceased was found dead in mysterious circumstances with multiple ante-mortem injuries on his body. The Respondent Trishla Jain, mother of the deceased, had given a complaint on the next day itself, but the Police, for reasons best known to them, chose not to register the FIR on the pretext that they were conducting an Enquiry."
The court further referred to the Supreme Court judgement in Lalita Kumari v. Government of Uttar Pradesh & Others, stating that FIR registration is mandatory when a cognizable offense is disclosed. The judgment recorded:
"There is no explanation forthcoming from the Police Officials for not registering the FIR. The efforts of the Respondent to get the FIR registered under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C did not meet the approval of the learned M.M, and it was only the intervention of the learned ASJ by Order dated 10.02.2016 that the FIR No. 216/2016 P.S. Sarai Rohilla was eventually registered."
The court further recorded that despite the FIR being registered in 2016, the investigation had been conducted in a tardy and unprofessional manner. Multiple investigating officers had been changed, and the case had been transferred to the DIU, North District, arbitrarily. These actions, the court noted, contributed to unwarranted delays in the investigation. The judgment stated:
"The status reports filed on record before the Ld. Trial Court and the case file produced before this court indicated a careless attitude and dereliction of duties on the part of the SHO P.S. Sarai Rohilla, as well as the senior police officers, including the then DCP, North District, and the concerned in-charge of the complaints cell at P.H.Q., New Delhi. None of the senior officers, including the Commissioner of Police, called for any report from the SHO concerned, and they failed to supervise the complaints filed by the revisionist in their offices at different times."
The High Court also addressed the contention that the Sessions Court had exceeded its jurisdiction by recommending disciplinary action. It clarified that the court had not issued any direct disciplinary orders but had merely recommended that the Ministry of Home Affairs examine whether any action was warranted. The court stated:
"It may hereby be clarified that when Disciplinary Action has been recommended, it is not directed that Departmental Enquiry be initiated. However, what has been recommended is that the Ministry of Home Affairs, being the Appointing Authority of the Police Officials, over whom they have the superintendence, look into the conduct of these Police Officers to ascertain whether there was in fact any dereliction of duty and any action is warranted against them."
The Delhi High Court upheld the directives for an inquiry against the police officials but reiterated that any disciplinary action must be taken in accordance with due process. The court ordered:
"A copy of this order be sent to the Secretary (Home), Government of India, North Block, New Delhi, for his information and for taking appropriate disciplinary action against the concerned senior officers of the Delhi Police and SHO concerned, as the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, is the cadre controlling authority of these senior officers of Delhi Police. An action taken report be also submitted by the Secretary, Home Affairs, Government of India, North Block, New Delhi, to this court within a period of six weeks from today."
The compliance report on the inquiry into the dereliction of duty by the petitioners was directed to be submitted before the trial court within six weeks.
Advocates Representing the Parties
- For the Petitioner (State of NCT of Delhi): Mr. Yasir Rauf Ansari (Ld. ASC), Mr. Alok Sharma, and Mr. Vasu Agarwal
- For the Respondent (Trishla Jain): Mr. Ashutosh Jha and Mr. Oleander Donald Singh.
Case Title: State of NCT of Delhi v. Trishla Jain
Neutral Citation: 2025: DHC:1581
Case Number: CRL.M.C. 549/2018 & W.P.(CRL.) 808/2016
Bench: Justice Neena Bansal Krishna
[Read/Download order]
