Judiciary can’t step into jurisdiction of police: Delhi court

NEW DELHI: Courts are barred from usurping the jurisdiction of police since the two organs of the state operate into specific spheres of activities and one ought not to tread over the other sphere, a city court has said while setting aside an order which had sought reply of the commissioner of Delhi Police on why a case of alleged cheating was lodged at Crime Branch instead of the concerned police station, while disregarding the provisions of the law.
A magistrate court had earlier directed the top cop to file the list of all representations made in the last one year to Crime Branch regarding various offences and the details of the cases in which FIR was registered and in which it was not.
It had also directed that the order be sent to ministry of home affairs for necessary information, so that the “prima facie arbitrary” exercise of the discretion of the special commissioner of police can be looked into.
Police had moved the sessions court against the order.
Calling the magistrate court’s order “perverse” and “unreasonable”, additional sessions judge Prashant Sharma said extraordinary and inherent powers of the court do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the court to act according to its whims or caprices.
The court said that the order was a “reflection of judicial discretion being exercised in an arbitrary and perverse manner”.
The judge further said that the court was not expected to traverse in the jurisdiction of police, unless absence of such intervention would result in miscarriage of justice, but in the present case the magistrate court had failed to highlight as to what miscarriage of justice would have resulted if the order was not passed.
“Courts are not supposed to thwart any investigation into cognisable offences. Criminal proceedings ought not to be scuttled at initial stage. Further ordinarily, courts are barred from usurping the jurisdiction of the police since the two organs of the state operate into specific spheres of activities and one ought not to tread over the other sphere. The functions of the judiciary and police are complementary not overlapping,” the court said in its order.
It added, “Same in exceptional cases where non-interference would result in miscarriage of justice, the court and the judicial process should not interfere at the stage of investigation of offences… it is clear that jurisdictions of the court of metropolitan magistrate and police have to be construed as separate.”
It noted that that previous observations, that there was disregard of the provisions of CrPC and arbitrary exercise of discretion by the commissioner in registration of the FIR, can decide the fate of the FIR in question and therefore, have the effect of terminating the main proceedings of the case once for all and can decide the case finally.
It said that the magistrate court had concluded arbitrary exercise of discretion by the special commissioner without giving him an opportunity of hearing.
Additional public prosecutor, appearing for police, had submitted that complainant Ranjan Oberoi had directly approached the office of special commissioner of police, Crime Branch and filed his complaint, which formed the basis of the FIR in question.
He further said that the complainant had made the complaint addressing special commissioner, police, headquarters, ITO, which was made over to ACP, STF, Crime Branch, for necessary action.