Interim Order 2

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: IN THE COURT OF SHRI RAVI, JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS-07,
PATIALA HOUSE COURTS NEW DELHI DISTRICT: NEW DELHI
Ct Cases / 19487/2025
Hemlata Vs. State
PS: Mandir Marg
30.07.2026
Present: Complainant in person.
Ms. Kajal Singhal and Sh. Kumar Shubham Kushwaha, ld.
counsels for the complainant/applicant through VC.
ORDER
1. The complainant, a Data Entry Operator with NDMC posted at SBS
Place, Gole Market, has filed the present application under Section
175(3) BNSS seeking a direction to the SHO, PS Mandir Marg to
register an FIR against Respondents No. 2 to 8 under the relevant
provisions of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and the
Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The complainant alleges that upon
disclosure of her category as belonging to a Scheduled Caste, her co-
workers/Respondents No. 2 to 8 subjected her to sustained casteist
abuse, humiliation and harassment between August 2024 and March
2025, including specific incidents on 30.07.2024, 01.08.2024,
02.08.2024, 09.12.2024, 19.12.2024, 23.12.2024, 06.02.2025,
05.03.2025 and 10.03.2025, with dates, times, locations and verbatim
casteist remarks (e.g., "neech chamari", "Saali chamaari mein bahut
himmat hai", "chamaari bil bana rahi hai", "Hemlata chamaari aa
gyi… isi laayak hai ye") set out in the complaint, several of which are
stated to have been uttered in the presence of identified third
Ct Cases / 19487/2025 Hemlata Vs. State Page No. 1 of 6
-- 1 of 6 --
persons/officials (Sh. B.P. Malik, Sh. Lalit Chopra, Mr. A.W. Ansari,
Mr. Joshi). It is further alleged that repeated representations to the
reporting officer, the Joint Director, the Chairperson NDMC, the CVO
and the SC-ST Commission yielded no action, and that a counter-
complaint was engineered against the complainant resulting in her
surrender from the department.
2. Pursuant to notice, an ATR/Status Report has been filed by ACP/DIU.
The report records that:
a. A fact-finding enquiry was conducted, during which none of the
eight accused persons admitted the allegations;
b. Three independent witnesses (Ms. Varsha, Sh. A.W. Ansari, Sh.
Lalit Chopra) stated that no caste-based remarks were made in their
presence;
c. No functional CCTV footage was available;
d. The complainant, on being asked to substantiate the allegations,
stated she had no audio/video clip specifically regarding the caste-
based remarks and had no independent witness to offer;
e. The original complaint to police was found to be general in nature
and was allegedly triggered by a legal notice and a prior complaint
filed against the complainant by Respondent No. 2 (Ms. Shailly);
3. Submissions heard
in extenso. Record has been thoroughly perused.
4. The law on registration of FIR has been fortied by Honb’le Supreme
Court of Inida in several judgemnets. In
Lalita Kumari vs. State of UP
(2014) 2 SCC 1 it was held that registration of FIR under Section 154
Cr.P.C. (now Section 173 BNSS) is mandatory where the information
Ct Cases / 19487/2025 Hemlata Vs. State Page No. 2 of 6
-- 2 of 6 --
discloses commission of a cognizable offence, and no preliminary
inquiry is permissible in such a situation. A preliminary inquiry is
permissible only where the information does not, on its face, disclose a
cognizable offence, and even then such inquiry is confined to
ascertaining whether a cognizable offence is disclosed, it cannot be
converted into a means of testing the truthfulness, credibility or
evidentiary sufficiency of the allegations. The categories illustratively
carved out for preliminary inquiry, matrimonial/family disputes,
commercial offences, medical negligence, corruption, and cases of
abnormal and unexplained delay, are illustrative, not exhaustive, but
they are also not so elastic as to swallow the rule itself.
5. The ATR, while correctly extracting this principle, does not correctly
apply it. Instead of confining itself to the limited question of whether
the complaint discloses a cognizable offence, the enquiry proceeded to
weigh the sufficiency of proof, absence of corroborating witnesses,
absence of audio/video evidence, denial by the accused, non-
functional CCTV. These are all matters that go to the veracity and
provability of the allegations, which
Lalita Kumari vs. State of UP
(2014) 2 SCC 1 itself (para 120.5, extracted in the ATR) expressly
places outside the scope of a preliminary inquiry. Whether
independent witnesses ultimately support the complainant's version,
whether her testimony is credible, and whether the offence is
established beyond reasonable doubt are questions for investigation
and trial, not preconditions for registration of the FIR.
6. Unlike the vague, undated allegations that concerned the court in
Gulam Mustafa (2021 SCC OnLine Kar 2974), the present complaint
Ct Cases / 19487/2025 Hemlata Vs. State Page No. 3 of 6
-- 3 of 6 --
is not bereft of particulars. It sets out specific dates, times, the words
allegedly used, and, in respect of several incidents (e.g., the remark
allegedly made on 01.08.2024 while Respondent No. 3 was addressing
Sh. B.P. Malik; the incident of 09.12.2024 in the presence of
Respondents No. 4, 6, 7 and 8; the incident of 06.02.2025 in the
presence of Mr. Joshi), names persons other than the complainant and
the accused who were allegedly present. It is well settled that "public
view" within the meaning of Section 3(1)(r)/(s) of the SC/ST Act does
not require the offence to occur before the public at large; presence of
persons other than the complainant's own family is sufficient
(Swaran
Singh v. State, (2008) 8 SCC 435). On a plain reading of the
complaint, therefore, the ingredient of public view is prima facie
pleaded, even if its ultimate proof, dependent on whether those named
persons support the version, remains to be tested in investigation. That
some of the named "independent" witnesses examined during the
enquiry (Ms. Varsha, Sh. Ansari, Sh. Chopra) did not corroborate the
allegation is a matter of evidentiary conflict, not an absence of
disclosure.
7. The alleged conduct is not a single, stale incident attracting the
"abnormal delay" exception; it is pleaded as a continuing course of
conduct from July 2024 to March 2025, during which the complainant
repeatedly and contemporaneously escalated her grievance internally
(to her reporting officer, the Joint Director, the Chairperson, the CVO
and the SC-ST Commission) before finally approaching the police and
this Court. Such conduct does not evidence the kind of unexplained
delay contemplated as a ground for preliminary inquiry.
Ct Cases / 19487/2025 Hemlata Vs. State Page No. 4 of 6
-- 4 of 6 --
8. The submission that the complaint is "retaliatory," being preceded by a
legal notice and complaint from Respondent No. 2, may be a relevant
circumstance for investigation and, eventually, for appreciation of
evidence at trial, but it cannot by itself displace the statutory duty to
register an FIR once a cognizable offence is disclosed on the face of
the complaint. Cross-litigation between parties is not unusual in
workplace disputes and does not, without more, render one side's
complaint frivolous at the threshold stage.
9. Taking the complaint as it stands, without at this stage entering into its
truth or falsity, which are exclusively investigative and trial matters, it
discloses cognizable offences under Section 3(1)(r)/(s) and other
relevant provisions of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989,
as well as provisions of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 pertaining
to sexual harassment, criminal intimidation and related offences as
may be disclosed on investigation. The threshold for registration of
FIR is not proof, but disclosure of a cognizable offence, and that
threshold stands satisfied.
10. For the reasons recorded above, the police were not justified in
withholding registration of the FIR on the ground of insufficiency of
corroboration or absence of independent proof, since the preliminary
inquiry exceeded the limited purpose sanctioned in
Lalita Kumari vs.
State of UP [(2014) 2 SCC 1]. The application under Section 175(3)
BNSS is accordingly allowed. The SHO, PS Mandir Marg, New Delhi,
is directed to forthwith register an FIR and to conduct a thorough and
impartial investigation in accordance with law, keeping in mind that
all defences and the veracity of rival versions, including those set out
Ct Cases / 19487/2025 Hemlata Vs. State Page No. 5 of 6
-- 5 of 6 --
in the ATR, shall be examined during investigation and are left open to
be considered on their merits.
11. A copy of this order be sent to the SHO, PS Mandir Marg, for
compliance. Application stands disposed of accordingly. The SHO
concerend is directed to file the compliance report on NDOH i.e
13.08.2026.
(RAVI)
JMFC-07/PHC/ND/ 30.07.2026
Ct Cases / 19487/2025 Hemlata Vs. State Page No. 6 of 6
-- 6 of 6 --