Neha Dutta v. Commissioner of Police

SOMYA KULHAR (S.I.) PS: Mehrauli, New Delhi....Respondent No.6

7. CT.

RAM RATTAN PS: Mehrauli, New Delhi....Respondent No.7

8. CT.

SUMIT MALIK PS: Mehrauli, New Delhi.....Respondent No.8

9. CT.

DHEERAJ KUMAR PS: Mehrauli, New Delhi....Respondent No.9

10. LADY CT.

BALA YADAV PS: Mehrauli, New Delhi....Respondent No.10

11.

TYPIST ASHISH KUMAR PS: Mehrauli, New Delhi....Respondent No.11

12. THE HON’BLE CHAIRMAN National Human Right Commission C-Block, Manav Adhikar Bhawan, CGO Complex, INA, New Delhi.....Respondent No.12 Through: Mr. Amol Singh, Ld. ASC for State with Mr. Kshitiz Garg, Mr. Ashvini Kumar, Ms. Chavi Lazarus, Mr. Nitish Dhawan and Ms. Sanskriti Nimbekar, Advocates and SI Sanjay P.S. Mehrauli. CORAM: HON'BLE MS.

JUSTICE NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA

JUDGMENT

NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA, J.

1. Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the “Cr.P.C.”) has been filed by Petitioner for directing Respondent Nos.[1] to 3 and 12 [The Commissioner of Police; Dy. Commissioner of Police (South); Dy. Commissioner of Police (Vigilance); Chairman NHCR, respectively] to register a FIR and for payment of compensation of Rs.40,00,000/- on account of assault, humiliation and illegal detention.

2. It is submitted that Petitioner No.1/Ms. Neha Dutta is an orphan girl, aged about 32 years as her father has expired in the year 2015 and mother has also expired in the year 2017. Her sister was murdered by her in-laws, in the year 2017. There is no one to take care of the Petitioner No.1 or support her financially, socially and emotionally. She is a student of Law.

3. Petitioner No.1 with the help of her fiancé (Petitioner No.2/Sh. Sumit Yadav herein) used to earn her livelihood, by running a small Tea Stall near Qutub Minar, New Delhi. She asserted that since last 5-6 months, local Police Officials of PS Mehrauli, i.e. Respondent Nos.[4] to 11, had been creating hurdles in running the Tea shop, which remains open till late in the night, as it is a busy place with many people like drivers, tourists, who visit there to take tea and cold drinks.

4. Petitioner No.2 had written a Letter to the DCP, Hauz Khas, New Delhi, complaining about the threats extended by Respondent No.4/Sh. Ved Prakash, SHO of PS Mehrauli to Petitioner No.1 to close-down her shop threatening that he would treat her permanently and teach her a lesson.

5. Petitioner No.1 then met the DCP, Hauz Khas, New Delhi and explained her situation and also gave a Complaint to him. However, despite letter to DCP, Hauz Khas, New Delhi, Respondent Nos.[4] to 11 did not stop torturing and harassing her and continued to frequently visit her shop and demand huge amounts for allowing the Petitioners to run the shop.

6. It is asserted that in the midnight of 13.05.2019, at about 01:30 AM, one Policeman, namely, Ct. Sumit Malik, Respondent No.8 entered into the shop and told Petitioner No.1 that the SHO was calling her. She politely declined to go as there were many customers present in the shop.

7. Thereafter, after 02-03 minutes, one lady Inspector Smt. Sushma Saxena, Additional SHO/Respondent No.5 came to the shop and again threatened. She tried to reason with her, but she was not willing to listen to her. She pulled her hair and slapped her. When she protested against such behavior, Mr. Somya Khulhar, Respondent No.6 pushed the Petitioner No.1 on the road and hit her on the breast and slapped her.

8. By this time, Petitioner No.2 who was also present in the shop, started making a video of the incident on his mobile phone. In the meanwhile, Respondent Nos.[4] to 11 and other Police Personnel tried to manhandle him and to prevent him from recording the incident. However, he was able to save the video-clip. Thereafter, he tried to flee from the spot but was chased by Respondent Nos.[4] to 11. This entire incident was recorded in the CCTV camera installed in the shop of Petitioners.

9. After running for about 100-150 meters, Petitioner No.2 entered into the left side of the Ticket counter of Qutub Minar. However, the area being dark and under construction, his leg slipped and he fell, upon which SI Somya Kulhar, Respondent No.6 manhandled him and called all Police Personnel who collectively gave beatings to him with kicks and fists. Respondent No.6 nabbed the keys of his vehicle, his mobile phone and purse. Thereafter, Respondent No.6 called the gypsy and till the gypsy reached the spot, they all continued to threaten and beat him. Thereafter, he was taken to the PS Mehrauli by Respondent Nos.[4] to 6. Because of these merciless beating, Petitioner No.2 suffered multiple injuries.

10. In the Police Station, Sh. Ved Prakash, SHO of PS Mehrauli (Respondent No.4 herein) directed the Police staff to take ‘good care’ of Petitioner No.2. Thereafter, he was taken out of the Police Station in a corner behind a tree, where Respondent Nos.[4] to 11 again gave severe beatings to him with kicks, fists and leather belt, due to which eardrum of Petitioner No.2 got damaged and he lost his hearing capability from left ear and his 7th rib of right side also got fractured, as is evident from his MLC dated 13.05.2019. It is further asserted that Respondent No.6/SI Somya Kulhara, Additional SHO had also slapped Petitioner No.2 04-05 times to and had threatened him.

11. Petitioner No.1 called PCR repeatedly and apprised them about the entire incident, but the PCR went away without taking any action.

12. It is asserted that thereafter, all the Police Officials i.e. Respondent Nos.[4] to 11 again entered into the Tea Stall and started breaking the goods of the shop. Respondent No.6 took out cash of Rs.2,00,000/- which was given by the father of Petitioner No.2 for their marriage. He also misbehaved with Petitioner No.1 by using filthy and vulgar language and tried to tear her T-shirt and put his hand in the back-side of Petitioner No.1’s body with the view to drag her bra from her body and tried to forcibly remove her jeans and also assaulted her. Thereafter, Police took her to the Police Station, wherein Respondent No.6 continued to misbehave with her and abuse her.

13. It is further asserted that Petitioner No.2 was confined in a Pota Cabin and was again threatened He requested to contact his father and brother. After Police Officials left, there were 4-5 boys sitting in that cabin, from whom he took a mobile phone and called his brother, Amit Yadav.

14. It is also asserted that Respondent Nos.[4] to 11 had illegally detained the Petitioners and given beatings to Petitioner No.2. Eventually, Petitioners were released from the Police Station.

15. Thereafter, Respondent No.7/Ct. Ram Rattan had got a Mafinama written from Petitioner No.2 and gave back his belongings. Even Petitioner No.1 was forcefully made to write the Mafinama and only then she was released from the Police Station, in the early morning of 13.05.2019.

16. Petitioner No. 1 called number 100 again, reporting that Respondent No.6 had not returned their vehicle’s key and requested medical help for Petitioner No. 2 due to his severe injuries. A PCR van arrived at Mehrauli Tehsil Yogmaya Gate but despite repeated messages, no local Police responded until 9:15 a.m. The ASI from the PCR van advised the Petitioners to go to the hospital on their own. They then went to Pt. Madan Mohan Malviya Hospital and got medically examined.

17. The Petitioners have further stated that Advocate R.P. Sharma, who lives in the neighborhood of the Petitioner No.1, is having a bad eye on her and her shop, for which he has already extended threats that he will get the shop closed. The Complaint dated 10.05.2018 was made to SHO, PS Mehrauli against Advocate R. P. Sharma.

18. One Civil Suit was filed by M/s Capital Art House against the mother of Petitioner No.l., Late Smt. Geeta Dutta, which is pending before this Court. One Criminal Case bearing SC No. 483/2017 titled as State vs. Shiv Narayan Negi etc. regarding murder of Petitioner No.1’s sister is also pending before Saket Court and Petitioner No.1 is the key witnesses in that murder case.

19. It is claimed that all these persons intend to harm Petitioner No.1 and her property. Therefore, the Petitioners have a strong apprehension that on the provocation and Complaints of all these persons, the Police Officials of PS Mehrauli have been harassing, humiliating and torturing them, so that they would leave the shop and the property.

20. Petitioner No.1 has also given a written Complaint dated 13.05.2019 against Respondent Nos.[4] to 11 to Hon’ble Home Minister, Chairman NHRC, Chairman NCW, Commissioner of Police, Joint C.P. (Crime), DCP (Crime) and DCP (Vigilance), but no authority has taken any legal action.

21. It is further asserted that on 20.05.2019, Respondent Nos.[5] and 6, i.e. Smt. Sushma Saxena, Addl. SHO and SI Somya Kulhar along with two other Constables, came to the shop of Petitioners and threatened them to withdraw their Complaint or else they would suffer dire consequences. Petitioners even tried to meet Respondent No.4/DCP (Vigilance), Hauz Khas, but were prevented by SI Mukesh Kumar, who did not let them come into the Office and assured that he would investigate the matter. After some time, the Petitioners made a call to SI Mukesh Kumar to know the status of their Complaint, but he did not respond to their call.

22. One day, SI Ravi made a call to the phone of Petitioner No.2 and told that DCP, Mr. Ravinder had called Petitioner No.1, but she refused to meet the DCP on account of her LL.B. exams which were going on.

23. Again after 04-05 days, one call was received from the Office of DCP (Respondent No.3) that Petitioner should meet him in his Office. Petitioners went there, but they were told that the DCP was not available in his office. They again visited the Office of Respondent No.3 on 08.07.2019, wherein they met SI Mukesh Kumar, who did not talk to them in proper manner and told them, “he is not only for their case and whenever it would be necessary, he would call the Petitioners”.

24. It is, thus, claimed that Petitioners have been tortured, harassed and beaten physically and have suffered mentally and emotionally at the hands of the Police Officials.

25. Hence, present Petition has been filed with Prayers for directing Respondent Nos.[1] to 3 to register the case of the Petitioner against Respondent Nos.[4] to 11 and other Police Personnel and hand over the investigation to CBI or other agency. Further, Compensation of Rs.40,00,000/- has been sought for harassment, humiliation and illegal detention, which has resulted in violation of Fundamental Right to Life and Liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and to further pay Rs.10,00,000/- for unnecessary financial burden that Petitioners have undertaken in this litigation.

26. The Status Report has been filed on behalf of the State wherein it has been explained that Petitioner No.1 is running a shop in the name and style of ‘Bharat Bhushan Dutta’, which is just adjacent to Qutab Minar and on the main road connecting Mehrauli to Haul Khas and Lado Sarai. There were various verbal Complaints that the said shop remains open for the whole night. It was stated by the locals that some bad elements consume alcohol, drinks, cigarette and other intoxicating articles at the said place after taking supplies from the shop.

27. On 21.03.2019 at around 0:30 AM, when SHO, PS Mehrauli was on night patrolling duty, he found that large number of young people were gathered in the said shop. On inquiry, it was found that large number of youngsters and suspicious persons in their cars and motorcycles have gathered there and were consuming cigarettes, tea, coffee etc. on the main road itself. On inquiry, Petitioner No.1/Neha Dutta got furious and started shouting loudly with the remarks that she is a Senior Advocate and nobody can take action against her. She was informed that opening of shop, especially by a young lady, at these odd hours is not permitted as per law, but she remained offensive and started making hue and cry.

28. It has also come to the notice that in the past as well, whenever any Police Official had tried to object the opening of the said shop, she leveled various allegations against him. Looking at the safety and security of Qutab Minar as well as to maintain general Law and Order, she was advised not open the shop at these odd hours, but she did not heed and made calls to PCR, which was recorded vide DD No.11A dated 21.03.2019.

29. Again, on 13.05.2019 at 12:30 AM, when W/Inspector Sushma Saxena, Respondent No.5 was on night patrolling duty, she also found that the said shop is open and gathering of large number of people. She told Neha Dutta to shut down the shop, but she again misbehaved and started making hue and cry.

30. Inspector Sushma Saxena then called SI Somya Kulhar (Respondent No.6 herein) on the spot who was on emergency duty. Petitioners started arguing with the Police Officials, but Police Officials remained calm and keeping in view the past conduct of Petitioners, the Petitioners were asked to come back to Police Station. While on the spot, the Petitioners tried to manhandle Inspector Sushma Saxena and SI Somya Kulhar. Video recording of few instances was also made wherein she can be seen shouting at the Police Officials.

31. It is submitted that she continuously makes false PCR calls, which is supported by Petitioner No.2/Sh. Sumit Yadav. When the Police approached Sh. Sumit Yadav, he ran away from the spot. He was taken to the Police Station and efforts were made to control the situation and pacify him. Neha remained rude and continued using abusive language. In the meanwhile, Sh. Sumit Yadav also came back to the Police Station and both the Petitioners gave their apology in writing. On 30.07.2018, another DD No.14A was recorded about the conduct of Petitioner No.1/Ms. Neha Dutta.

32. As per the directions of Senior Officers opening of Pan, Biri and Cigarette shops after 11 PM, is violation of the Order No.2118- 2218/SO/ACP/Mehrauli. It is submitted that as per the Petitioners themselves, their shop remained open for the whole night.

33. On 13.05.2019 at 01:30 PM, both Petitioners were medically examined. It is claimed that this was done in consultation with the Advocate and Police Officials, who were members family members of Petitioner No.2/Sh. Sumit Yadav. They had visited the Police Station on that date and assured that the shop would not operate till late night in the future.

34. It is submitted that allegations of sexually molestation, taking cash from the shop are totally false, baseless and motivated with the intention to create pressure over Police party. Petitioner No.2 has also leveled allegations against Advocate Mr. R. P. Sharma, as he has legal issues with him. It is denied that Police has any such association with any such persons and the action taken by the police was bona fide to maintain law and order in the area. It is asserted that there is no merit in the allegations leveled herein.

35. Petitioners have submitted Written Synopsis and have placed reliance on State of Maharashtra vs. Ibrahim A. Patel, 2008 CRI LJ 1496, State of Punjab vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and Ors., (2011) 9 SCC 182; Vinay Tyagi vs. Irshad Ali alias Deepak and Ors., (2013) 5 SCC 762; Ashok Kumar Todi vs. Kishwar Jahan And Others, (2011) 3 SCC 758; Maharashtra Chess Association vs. Union Of India & Ors., 2019 (10) SCALE 67; Ramesh Kumari vs. State (N.C.T. of Delhi) and Others, AIR 2006 SC 1322; A V Bellarmin; S Anthony; E Chellaiya; N Ganesan; T Krishnan And Ors vs. V Santhakumaran Nair, 2015 (4) MadLJ (Cri. 436). Submission heard and record perused.

36. Essentially, from the averments made in the Complaint, it clearly emerges that Petitioners have a Tea Stall near Qutub Minar, New Delhi, which is kept open by them till late hours in the night, leading to gathering of some people for taking drinks, cigarette and other intoxicating articles, etc. There are also allegations that there is alcohol, which gets consumed by the persons present, thereby creating a Law-and-Order situation. The Petitioners themselves have admitted about the keeping the shop open till late in the night. There are allegations made by them that they were beaten mercilessly by the Police Officials, for which the Complaints have been made to the SHO as well as the DCP.

37. In this regard, reference be made to the observations by the Apex Court in Sakiri Vasu vs. State of U.P., (2008) 2 SCC 409, wherein it has been categorically held that the High Court should not encourage or entertain a Writ Petition or a Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C for registration of an FIR, as there is already a remedy available under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C It was observed as under:

Superintendent of Police or the officer referred to in Section 36 his grievance still persists, then he can approach a Magistrate under Section 156(3) CrPC instead of rushing to the High Court by way of a writ petition or a petition under Section 482 CrPC. Moreover, he has a further remedy of filing a criminal complaint under Section 200 CrPC. Why then should writ petitions or Section 482 petitions be entertained when there are so many alternative remedies?

27. As we have already observed above, the Magistrate has very wide powers to direct registration of an FIR and to ensure a proper investigation and for this purpose he can monitor the investigation to ensure that the investigation is done properly (though he cannot investigate himself). The High Court should discourage the practice of filing a writ petition or petition under Section 482 CrPC simply because a person has a grievance that his FIR has not been registered by the police, or after being registered, proper investigation has not been done by the police. For this grievance, the remedy lies under Sections 36 and 154(3) before the police officers concerned, and if that is of no avail, under Section 156(3) CrPC before the Magistrate or by filing a criminal complaint under Section 200 CrPC and not by filing a writ petition or a petition under Section 482 CrPC.”

38. This judgement was referred by the Apex Court in Sudhir Bhaskarrao Tambe vs. Hemant Yashwant Dhage, (2016) 6 SCC 277, wherein it was observed that if the High Courts start entertaining such Writ Petitions, they will be flooded with such Petitions praying for registration of the first information report or praying for a proper investigation, and will not be able to do any other work except dealing with such Writ Petitions. The Complainant must avail of his alternate remedy to approach the Magistrate concerned under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C and if he does so, the Magistrate will ensure, if prima facie he is satisfied, registration of the first information report and also ensure a proper investigation in the matter, and he can also monitor the investigation.

39. In the present case, the Respondents have given detailed Reports, explaining how every time they have tried to prevail upon the Petitioners to shut the shop in accordance with the prevailing Rules, they had refused to do so. In these circumstances, if, on the Complaint made by the Petitioner, no FIR was registered, they had a remedy to approach the Court of learned M.M. under Section 175 (3) B.N.S.S. (corresponding to Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.) for registration of the FIR.

40. There is no merit in the Petition to justify approaching the Hon’ble High Court directly in the Writ jurisdiction for directions for registration of FIR. There is an alternative efficacious remedy available with the Petitioners, which must be followed in accordance with law.

41. At this stage, no directions for registration of FIR or of Compensation is merited in the backdrop of the case, as stated above.

42. The Petition along with the pending Application(s) stands disposed of, with liberty to the parties to approach the Court of learned JMFC for registration of FIR, in accordance with law.

JUDGE AUGUST 07, 2025