Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: 11th December, 2019
DR. NAIMA PASHA ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Nizamuddin Pasha, Mr. Izafeer Ahmad and Mr. Bharat Gupta, Advs.
Through: Mr. Vivek Goyal, CGSC with Mr. Mohit Bhardwaj and Mr. Ram Kishan
Kumar, Advs. for UOI Mr. Naushad Ahmed Khan, ASC with
Ms. Manisha Chauhan, Adv. for respondent no. 2
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.HARI SHANKAR O R D E R 11.12.2019
D.N. PATEL, CHIEF JUSTICE (ORAL)
CM Appl. Nos. 53345-46/2019 (exemption)
Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. Applications are disposed of.
W.P.(C) No. 13088/2019
JUDGMENT
1. This Public Interest Litigation (PIL) has been preferred with the following prayers: 2019:DHC:6909-DB “(a) this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ and/or any other order and direction in the nature of Writ of Mandamus under Article 226 of the Constitution of India quashing the Impugned Circular dated 20.11.2019; (b) this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a Writ of Prohibition restraining the Respondents, its servants, agents, officers, subordinates from in any manner whatsoever, directly or indirectly, relying upon / giving effect / acting in pursuance to the Impugned Circular and to further restrain the Respondents, its servants, agents, officers, subordinates from in any manner whatsoever, directly or indirectly, disturbing / interfering with statements of complainant / public whilst registering FIR and record the statements truthfully in the words of such complainant.
(c) pending the disposal of the instant Writ Petition, this
(d) pending the disposal of the instant Writ Petition, this
Hon'ble Court be pleased to restrain the Respondents, its servants, agents, officers, subordinates from in any manner whatsoever, directly or indirectly, relying upon / giving effect / acting in pursuance to the Impugned Circular; (e) for ad-intehm / interim reliefs in terms of prayer (c) and (d) above; (f) for such further and other reliefs as the nature and circumstances of the case may require.”
2. Having heard the counsel for both the sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that the petitioner is challenging the circular dated 20th November, 2019 issued by the respondent no. 2 (Delhi Police), which is annexed as Annexure A to the memo of this writ petition.
3. From the facts of the case, it appears that earlier a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) being WP(C) No. 6183/2018 was preferred, wherein it was prayed that the Commissioner of Police be directed to stop police personnel from using Urdu and Persian words in the FIR. For ready reference, the order dated 7th August, 2019 passed by this Court in WP(C) No. 6183/2018 is reproduced as under: “1. The petitioner who is appears in person has taken this Court to the list of Persian as well as Urdu words frequently and commonly used by the police themselves while narrating incidents in the FIRs and normally at the end of the FIR. The list of such words are as under:- “Insaad jarayam - Prevention of crime Majroob – Injured Imroz – Today Inkashaf – Disclosure Musammi - Mr/Ms Mustaba - Suspect Adam pata - Untraceable Muddayi - Complainant Muddala - Accused Tameel - Execution Aala-a-qatal - Murder weapon Taftish - Investigation Daryaft - Plea Hasab jabta - As per law Missal - File Tarmeem - Amendment Ishtagassa - Petition”
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also taken this Court to following sentences of one of the FIRs registered under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973:- “श्रीमान DO साहब थाना सब्जी e.Mh दिल्ली बकार सरकार fuosnu है मन SI dks Crime Women Cell/North Distt. ls ekSlqy gksus ij vQljku ckykds vkns”k vuqlkj U/S 498/A/406/34 IPC dk ljtn gksuk ik;k tkrk gS fygktk rgjhj gtk cxtZ dk;eh eq0 nj jft0 djds ckgqDe SHO lkgc rQrh”k gokys SI Ramphal lkgc fd tk;”
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also taken this Court to page No.71 of the writ petition which is also one of the sample FIRs which is more in Urdu than in Hindi language. The same reads as under:-
4. FIR should be in words of the complainant. Too much flowery language, the meaning of which is to be found out with the help of dictionaries, is not to be used in the FIRs. Moreover, the police officers are working for the common public at large and not always for those who are Doctorate degree holders in Urdu, Hindi or Persian languages. As far as possible, simple words are to be used in the FIRs.
5. We, therefore, direct the Commissioner, Delhi Police to explain whether these words used in the sample FIRs mentioned in the memo of this writ petition, are of the complainant or of the police personnel. We also direct the Commissioner, Delhi Police to file an affidavit indicating as to why they are using such type of words which are not spoken by the concerned complainant. The affidavit shall be filed before the next date of hearing.
6. List on 25th November, 2019.”
4. Pursuant to aforesaid order dated 7th August, 2019 passed by this Court in WP(C) no. 6183/2018, a Circular has been issued on 20th November, 2019 by the Commissioner of Police, Delhi, which is annexed as Annexure A to the memo of this writ petition.
5. Having heard the counsel for both the sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, we see no reason to entertain this writ petition mainly for the reason that the archaic Urdu and Persian words, which the complainant cannot understand, ought not to be used by the police personnel in the FIR. If there are general words of Urdu/Persian, like “kitab” etc., such words can always be used but the archaic Urdu/Persian words ought not to be used by the respondents and that is the only observation, which we conveyed vide our order dated 7th August, 2019 passed in writ petition being WP(C) No. 6183/2018.
6. With these observations, this writ petition is hereby disposed of.
CHIEF JUSTICE C.HARI SHANKAR, J. DECEMBER 11, 2019 r.bararia