Even in death of one of its own, police insensitive: Delhi Court refuses to set aside order directing FIR into cop's death

If the death of a cop, who died due to bullet injuries in an isolated spot and whose wife is crying foul blaming some people by name does not warrant even a registration of FIR, one wonders what does?This observation came from a Delhi Court which upheld an order directing the police to register a First Information Report (FIR) into the suspicious death of one of their own [Seema Meena & Anr v. State & Anr]..While hearing a revision petition filed against the order of a Metropolitan Magistrate directing the police to register an FIR in the case, Additional Sessions Judge Monika Saroha underscored that the Supreme Court's judgment in Lalita Kumari v. State of UP & Ors must be “honoured in letter and spirit”. It also noted,"Thus, in the present facts, on the one hand, the widow of the deceased is knocking the doors of the very department her husband was serving, seeking atleast registration of an FIR upon the unnatural death of her husband and on the other the police department even in the death of one of its own is acting in a lackadaisical, insensitive and illegal manner by refusing to lodge even an FIR in time.".The case arose from a complaint of Bula Devi, whose husband’s body was reportedly found on July 26, 2020, with a gunshot injury to its head, inside a car parked at a lonely spot in the jurisdiction of the Saket Police Station, where he was posted as a head constable.Devi had filed an application under Section 156 3) Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), urging a magisterial court to order an FIR and investigation into her husband Sanjay Kumar’s “sudden and unnatural death”. She had alleged that her husband was being harassed and blackmailed by his colleagues. A day before he died, Kumar was stated to have apprehended a threat to his life.Seeking a fair investigation into the cause of her husband's sudden death, Devi made several complaints to different authorities, including the Deputy Commissioner of Police, South District and the Commissioner of Police. However, no FIR came to be registered..Upon hearing Devi’s plea, the magisterial court had called for a status report from the police. The report detailed the nature of the weapon found next to his body, besides an analysis of the call recordings between Kumar and his colleagues, who were allegedly involved in his death.However, the report concluded that “nothing suspicious” came on record through the police inquiry. Thus, no FIR was registered and the police authorities sought more time to “finalise” the same. The magistrate then directed the registration of an FIR and a probe into Devi's allegations. This prompted the concerned police officers to file a revision application..Before Judge Saroha, the revisionists, also constables with the Delhi Police, sought setting aside of the magistrate order directing the police to lodge an FIR. The order was argued to have been passed in a “mechanical manner” without application of judicial mind and without mentioning the exact penal offences for which the FIR was to be registered. Devi’s several complaints were also alleged to be contradictory in nature.Besides, the magisterial court was also said to have ignored the police’s status report and the fact that the forensic results and final post-mortem reports were awaited. Another point argued was that the cause of death was not mentioned in the order which was a “cryptic and non-speaking” one..After deciding that the revision petition was maintainable, the Court noted,“Interestingly or unfortunately, a postmortem has been conducted, inquiry under Section 174 CrPC initiated, crime team reached the spot, wound swabs — blood samples have been seized and sent for chemical examination to FSL, CFSL team also went to the spot and ballistic results have been sought… all this without even registration of an FIR! This court fails to appreciate this ‘reverse gear’ approach adopted by the local police.".It also underscored the importance of probing incidents such as these, given that the police often develop enmity with notorious elements."Many notorious elements of any local area develop enmity with serving police officials. Unnatural death of a cop on duty must be effectively investigated especially when the surviving family members are seeking such investigation raising suspicion over the cause and manner of death.”.It also came on record that the preliminary inquiry in the present case had been pending for six months before an order was passed by the magistrate.“Registration of an FIR is the first step which must be taken in such cases before the police conducts further investigation. This duty of the police becomes all the more important and urgent when the deceased is a police official and his widow is sending written complaints mentioning her suspicion to higher officials of the police department,” noted Judge Saroha..While refusing to set aside the order, the Court said that once the magistrate has opted to order registration of FIR, while exercising its power of revisional jurisdiction, it cannot substitute its own opinion with that of the magistrate unless something perverse is brought out.“The persons against whom suspicion has been raised in this matter are also experienced police officials, therefore, needless to say the investigation must be fair, unbiased and meet gold standards. The proposed accused must also feel secure that the investigation is a fair one,” it added..Advocate Sachin Anand appeared for the revisionist. Additional Public Prosecutor Nischal Singh appeared for the State..[Read Order]