Order 3

Order Details: COPY OF JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS
Pdf Text: 54 MISC CRL 53/2023
USHA DEVI Vs. ASI NARENDER KUMAR00/2023 (K.N. KatjuMarg)
15.05.2025
Present: Ms. Namrata Chauhan, Ld. APP for the State.
Ld. Counsel for applicant along with applicant.
1. The present application has been moved by the complainant Usha Devi under
Section 156(3) CrPC seeking directions for registration of FIR against the proposed
accused persons, who are police officials, under Sections
354C/385/509/166A/120B/34 IPC and allied provisions.
2. The complainant has alleged that while investigating FIR No. 473/2023 under
the NDPS Act, the proposed accused persons, led by ASI Narender Kumar, visited
her house on multiple occasions, demanded bribes of Rs. 20 lakhs, made unlawful
threats, and even demanded sexual favors. She has also placed reliance on certain
CCTV footage in support of her allegations.
3. The application is accompanied by detailed written submissions, annexures,
and reference to video footage which, as per the complainant, captures the alleged
acts.
4. The status report has been filed by the ACP Prashant Vihar in compliance with
earlier directions of this court, wherein the allegations have been categorically denied
by the police officials. The report, based on examination of the CCTV footage and
statements recorded, asserts that:
• ASI Narender Kumar and his staff did visit the house of the complainant in
connection with the investigation of the NDPS case and recorded interrogation
proceedings.
• The female constable W/HC Seenu was present throughout the period.
• No demand of bribe, coercion, or any form of misconduct is discernible from
the CCTV footage, which has been analyzed by the department.
• It is further recorded that the complainant is herself accused in the said NDPS
case.
-- 1 of 2 --
5. Upon careful scrutiny of the material placed on record, including the video
footage presented by the complainant, the following observations are made:
• The allegations levelled are indeed of serious nature and involve accusations
against public officials, which ordinarily require cautious and judicious consideration.
• However, the complainant is already in possession of the key evidence (i.e.,
video footage) which does not, prima facie, reveal any explicit acts of sexual
harassment, demand of bribe, or other cognizable offences as alleged. The footage is
largely inaudible and does not clearly capture any act which would warrant
immediate direction for registration of FIR.
• The presence of the female police staff is visible for most parts of the footage.
The complainant’s inference that during the brief period when the female staff is seen
outside from a particular angle, serious misconduct occurred inside, remains an
inference unsupported by cogent, clear, and unambiguous prima facie material.
• It is also evident that the complainant has already approached the higher police
authorities and a preliminary inquiry has been conducted, wherein the allegations
have not been substantiated. The complainant has not placed any credible material to
show gross inaction or bias of such magnitude which would require immediate
recourse under Section 156(3) CrPC bypassing the procedure of filing a complaint
under Section 200 CrPC.
6. It is well settled law that the power under Section 156(3) CrPC is not to be
invoked mechanically.
7. In view of the above, this court is not satisfied that the present matter requires
intervention under Section 156(3) CrPC at this stage. The complainant is at liberty to
pursue remedies under Section 200 CrPC by leading her evidence in support of the
allegations.
8. Accordingly, the application under Section 156(3) CrPC stands dismissed on
merits.
Put up for PSE on 02.09.2025.
(Himanshu Sehloth)
JMFC-03/ North/ Rohini/ Delhi
15.05.2025
-- 2 of 2 --