Safiya Malik

The High Court of Delhi Division Bench of Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Madhu Jain has issued notice to the Director of the National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB) and the Deputy Director General of the National Informatics Centre (NIC), directing them to file status reports on whether steps have been contemplated to integrate additional criminal case data on the NCRB portal. The Court said the portal’s records should be expanded to include complaint cases that do not lead to FIR registration, as well as complaint cases pending or decided by competent courts, so that a consolidated picture of criminal antecedents is available to courts and prosecutors. The directions arose while considering a suspension of sentence plea, where lack of readily accessible antecedent data was flagged.

The appeal arose from a conviction under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, by the Additional Sessions Judge (FTC)-02, South-East District, Saket Courts, New Delhi. The appellant was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for life and fined Rs. 50,000/-. During the pendency of the appeal, the appellant sought suspension of sentence under Section 430 read with Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, on the ground that he had undergone more than eight years and six months of incarceration and had no criminal antecedents. It was contended that there were no fingerprints on the alleged weapons and that his jail conduct was satisfactory.

The prosecution opposed the application, relying on testimonies of PW-3, the father of the deceased, and PW-4, the minor child of the deceased, who confirmed the appellant’s presence at the crime scene. Photographs depicting the manner of the deceased’s death were also placed on record.

Also Read: Statutory Authorities Can Intervene When Co-Operative Housing Society Delays Membership Decisions; Supreme Court

Separately, in the context of suspension applications, the Court examined issues relating to availability of criminal antecedent data and sought status reports from the Director General of Prisons, Delhi and the Commissioner of Police, Delhi regarding integration of complaint cases with the NCRB database.

The Court observed, “When convicts are seeking suspension of sentence/bail, repeatedly, adjournments are being sought, as the information concerning criminal antecedents is not readily available.” It further recorded, “This Court is, prima facie, of the view that such delay caused by lack of aforesaid information can be avoided in two ways.”

The Bench stated, “Mandatory Disclosure of Criminal Antecedents by Applicants along with suspension of sentence application” and also referred to “Integration of data with NCRB records” as possible mechanisms. It observed, “Even private complaint cases are perused and adjudicated by Criminal Courts within Delhi, and the details of the said cases ought to be mapped with the data available on the NCRB portal, so that information emanating from Criminal Courts is also duly reflected on the NCRB portal.”

Upon perusing the status reports, the Court noted that certain categories of cases were not reflected in existing systems, including cases where the inmate had not been arrested, where no production warrants were received, and complaint cases not culminating in FIRs. The Court recorded, “Steps ought to be explored for integrating data on the NCRB portal, relating to complaint cases which do not result in FIRs as also complaint cases which are pending or decided by the competent Courts.”

While considering the suspension application, the Court stated, “PW-3 and PW-4 have confirmed the presence of the Appellant at the crime scene.” It further recorded, “The photographs of the crime scene which have been placed on record reveals the manner in which the deceased was brutally murdered.” After perusal of the evidence, the Court stated, “At this stage, the Court is not inclined to suspend the sentence of the Appellant.”

The Court directed, “Accordingly, issue notice to Director, NCRB as also DDG, NIC with whom the NCRB data base is being managed. Let the aforesaid authorities file status reports as to whether any steps have been contemplated for integrating the following data on the NCRB portal and if so, whether any department is looking into the matter or not.”

The Court specified integration of “Pending criminal cases against the Prison inmates, apart from the case in which they are lodged in jail; Complaint cases which do not result in FIRs; Complaint cases which are pending or decided by the competent Courts. Let the status reports be filed by the next date of hearing.”

Also Read: Delhi High Court Dismisses Plea To Revise Delhi Judicial Services Exam 2023 Final Result, Says Interference May Open Floodgates

“Accordingly, let a Status report be filed by DLSA, South East as to whether compensation has been calculated and any disbursement has been made or not. The Secretary DLSA, South East shall interact with the complainant on the above mobile no. and then make a recommendation to the Court in respect of the future prospects for both the children of the deceased.”

“Copy of this order shall be served by the Registry upon the Director, NCRB and the DDG, NIC through the following email addresses. Copy of this order shall be communicated to the DLSA, South East for necessary information and compliance. Accordingly, the application is dismissed.”

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioners:  Mr. Sudarshan Rajan (DHCLSC), Mr. Hitain Bajaj, Advocates

For the Respondents:  Mr. Ritesh Kumar Bahri, APP with Ms. Divya Yadav and Mr. Lalit Luthra, Advocates with Dr. R.S. Gupta 

Case Title: Parveen Taneja v. State of NCT of Delhi
Neutral Citation: 2026: DHC:987-DB
Case Number: CRL.A. 251/2025
Bench: Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Madhu Jain