Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: 12th August, 2025
KHUSHBU
S/o Pawan Sharma VPO Qutabgarh, Delhi-110039. .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Pawan Sharma, Advocate
JUDGMENT
1. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI Through SHO, P.S. Kanjhawala, Delhi.
2. SHO AND IO OF PRESENT COMPLAINT P.S. Kanhawala, Delhi.
3. DY.
4. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE Delhi......Respondents Through: Mr. Anand V. Khatri, ASC with SI Pravin Singh, PS: Kanjhawala CORAM: HON'BLE MS.
JUSTICE NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA JUDGMENT (oral)
1. Writ Petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India read with Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as “B.N.S.S”) has been filed for issuance of directions for registration of FIR under Section 310(2), 311, 351, 127(7) and other relevant Sections of B.N.S.S., 2023 and directions be issued to CBI or Crime Branch or other independent Investigating Agency.
2. The victim/Petitioner is a house lady having three children aged 9, 7 and 2 years old. She is peace loving and law-abiding citizen of India. It is asserted that Police Officials SHO/I.O. and others of Police Station Kanjhawla, have colluded with the accused persons/Respondents and violated fair and partial investigations and have committed numerous heinous and atrocious offences against the Petitioner and her family, and have deliberately failed to register the FIR.
3. The Petitioner in exercise of her rights as a victim and in the interest of justice, had made a Complaint about the commission of offence of dacoity on 15.04.2025. The PCR was called at No.112 and thereafter, the Complaint was made in the Police Station. Despite the Orders of this Court to the SHO and higher Authorities, no proper and appropriate action has been taken in accordance with law.
4. In the past as well, the Police officials have failed to invoke proper Sections, conduct fair investigation and have flagrantly violated law and principles of natural justice. Despite commission of grievous offence, the benefit had been given to the accused persons as the favorable Chargesheet was filed against the Accused without affecting their arrest. The Accused have therefore, encouraged to continuously commit the offences.
5. The brief facts are that the Petitioner belongs to a Jaat family, while her husband belongs to Brahmin community. After getting married, she and her husband encountered vehement opposition from their family and community. She is the only surviving member and the sole legal heir of her parental family. Her father died under suspicious circumstances, when she was about 2 years old. In 2011, her sister was murdered while alone at home and her mother was forcibly prevented from reporting the crime. In 2016, her mother was also murdered in MCD Office, Shahabad Dairy, Delhi and FIR No.613/2016 was registered. Despite substantial evidence suggesting the involvement of her family members, the I.O ignored the leads.
6. The family members have tried to usurp her share of 3 acres of land, houses and plots in the inherited property from her father and horrific crimes are being committed against her and her family, to coerce her into surrendering her rights in the inherited properties to them.
7. After the murder of the mother, the Petitioner and her family is living in fear and danger. She started living in the Paying Guest facility in Mukherjee Nagar, Delhi along with her husband and the children. In 2017, she shifted to her in-laws home in Bhiwani, Haryana, where she resided till
2019. For usurping the property, the accused persons began to make a conspiracy with her in-laws and evicted the Petitioner and her family from there. Thereafter, they started residing on rent in Bhiwani, Haryana. On 22.06.2021 accused persons brutally assaulted and injured the Petitioner resulting in registration of FIR after delay of 56 days. On 09.11.2023 she and her husband were brutally injured and vandalized, but no FIR was registered. Eventually, various Petitions and Complaints were filed and 3 FIRs got registered.
8. It is claimed that Respondent No.1 is acting hand in glove with the accused persons and have not arrested them even though they had committed heinous offences and had violated Bail conditions.
9. It is submitted that she and her husband have been called to Police Station Kanjhawla on several occasions and in the presence of the Accused persons, they have been pressurized to withdraw their Complaints and to Compromise. It is asserted that these circumstances led to filing of an Application for protection of victim Petitioner and the witnesses. The Order was passed by the Committee of Witness Protection and by this Court regarding the Victim Protection, despite which no proper action has been taken by Respondent No.1 and 2.
10. The Petitioner in her Complaint dated 15.04.2025 alleged that at about 01:30 A.M. while she and her mother-in-law were present in the agricultural field, a car and a Tractor arrived at the location. 30-40 masked individuals surrounded them both. She recognized one accused namely Monu by his voice. Monu and his associates were armed with fire arms and other deadly weapons and at gun point, they criminally intimidated the Petitioner and her mother-in-law and threatened to kill them if they attempted to resist or escape. Thereafter, Monu made a telephonic call and instructed other colleagues to shut off the lights of machine. The entire group of accused persons confined the Petitioner and her mother-in-law by surrounding and threatening them and forcefully looted and took away the wheat crop from the Petitioner’s field. After the accused persons left, the Petitioner called the Police Emergency Line 112 and was provided with the contact details of the SHO and I.O. Despite repeated calls, the concerned Police officials answered only after much difficulty and merely performed superficial formalities without providing any meaningful assistance or initiating legal action.
11. The Accused persons have exploited the local influence and appeared to be acting in collusion with the SHO/IO of P.S. Kanjhawla. Despite the Complaint and the submission of the Order of this Court, no proper action has been taken resulting in miscarriage of justice. The copy of the photographs and copy of the link to Google Drive of video and audio recordings of accused persons and the conversations between them and the Police, are annexed with the Complaint.
12. It is submitted that on previous occasions as well, several offences have been committed by the accused persons against the Petitioner and the family members. Despite the Complaint, no action has been taken. It is submitted that for the purpose of fair and independent investigations, directions be given for registration of FIR.
13. In any case it is the mandatory duty of the Police Officers to register FIR under 154 Cr.P.C on the Complaint which disclosed cognizable offence. Reliance is placed on Babuhai vs. State of Gujarat & Ors. (2010) 12 SCC
254. The complexity of the matter especially use of firearms, threat to life and property damage by unknown individuals, requires Police investigation which must be carried out by some independent or specialized Agency. This Court in exercise of its inherent powers under Article 226 Constitution of India can direct registration of FIR and investigations by independent Agency where State Police fails to do so, for which reliance is placed on Sakiri Vasu vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (2008) 2 SCC 409. Reliance is also placed on Lalita Kumari vs. Government of Uttar Pradesh, (2014) 2 SCC 1, wherein it has been held that registration of FIR is mandatory where information discloses a cognizable offence.
14. Reliance is also placed on Vineet Narain vs. Union of India (1998) 1 SCC 226 and Pooja Pal vs. Union of India (2016) 3 SCC 135.
15. It is further submitted that looking at the nature of gravity of the offence, investigations need to be carried by CBI or an independent Agency, as has been held by the Supreme Court in Anant Thanur Karmuse vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. Reliance is also placed on State of West Bengal vs. Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights (2010) 3 SCC 571 and Tehseen S. Poonawalla vs. Union of India (2018) 9 SCC 501, Amit Kumar and Others vs. Union of India and Others.
16. It is, therefore, submitted that directions be issued for registration of FIR on the Complaint of the Petitioner and to pass further directions to the Authority and learned Court to expeditiously take necessary measures for safeguarding the life and liberty of the Petitioner and to take disciplinary action against the Police officials including I.O/SHO Kanjhawla.
17. The Status Report has been filed on behalf of the State, wherein it is submitted that a Complaint was received from the Petitioner alleging that on 23.03.2025 when she visited her agricultural land, she found Monu and others allegedly harvesting the crop on her land without permission. She confronted those persons including Dinesh’s wife and certain labourers and also made a PCR call regarding her mobile phone being snatched and she being physically assaulted.
18. The PCR call was recorded at P.S. Kanjhawala vide DD No.51A dated 23.03.2025, which was marked to ASI Harjeet Singh. He went to the spot where no such incident as mentioned in the PCR call, was found to have taken place. The IO asked the Complainant to get her medical examination conducted at the Hospital in regard to the injury allegedly caused to the Complainant, but she refused.
19. It is explained that Shri Subhash, father of the Complainant had two brothers namely Shri Umed and Shri Ramchander. The three brothers jointly owned 9 Killa of agricultural land, which was orally distributed amongst themselves and 3 Killas came to the share of each of them, though there was no formal documentation or registered partition effected. Subsequently, the father of the Complainant died leaving the informal partition undisturbed. Presently, six Kille of land belong to Shri Umed and Shri Ramchander on which Monu cultivates the crops regularly with their consent and understanding.
20. The Complainant alleges her ownership over the crops sown on the land of Shri Umed and Ram Chander and makes PCR calls resulting in repeated police involvements. There is a long-standing property dispute relating to distribution of ancestral agricultural land on account of which frequent altercation takes place between the parties leading to registration of multiple FIRs against each other. On the Complaint of Khushbu Rana and her husband, 7 FIRs have been registered against the other parties while 2 FIRs have been registered against the Complainant and her husband on the Complaint of the opposite party.
21. The Complainant Khushbu had filed a Civil Suit bearing CS SCJ No.541/2024 which is against Umed Singh, Deepak and Monu and others, which is pending trial.
22. Moreover, the Applicant has filed an Application under Section 173(4) and Section 175 BNS before the Court of learned JMFC, Rohini which is pending for arguments on 27.09.2025.
23. It is submitted that the present Complaint is also the result of longstanding property disputes amongst her and the alleged accused persons. The matter is Civil in nature as the dispute is in regard to distribution of ancestral property between both the parties. Submissions heard and record perused.
24. As per the submissions made by the Complainant herself, she had given a copy of the Complaint dated 15.04.2025 about the incident of alleged dacoity in which she had named one Monu as one of the assailants. Her major grievance is that despite the Complaint disclosing a cognizable offence, no FIR has been registered.
25. It has been explained that on the PCR call which was registered vide GD No.0005A at 01:18 on 15.04.2025, an information was received about an incident from the Complainant, Const. Jai Ram went to the spot and found that no such incident had taken place which was recorded vide GD No.0112A. Moreover, it was recorded that Complainant Khushbu Rana was a habitual complainant and that the dispute is essentially in regard to the property when asked to make a Complaint, she stated that she herself would give a Complaint in the Police Station. The action was accordingly taken on her repeated calls.
26. Several FIRs have been registered on the Complaints of the Petitioner. In fact, she has even filed other Complaints under Section 175(3) B.N.S.S. before the Ld. JMFC, which is pending consideration. Any grievance in regard to inaction on the part of the Police, gives a remedy to the Complainant to approach the Court for getting the FIR registered. The present Petition is not the appropriate remedy. Consequently, the Petition is disposed of with liberty to the Petitioner to seek appropriate remedy under the relevant Sections before the appropriate Forum.
27. The Petition stands disposed of along with the Pending Application(s).
JUDGE AUGUST 12, 2025