Coming down heavily on a Delhi Police investigating officer (IO) for falsely implicating a person in a case of rash and negligent driving, a court here said he deserved the highest form of castigation and disciplinary action so that it would deter others like him who intend to misuse their powers against innocent people.
"The facts of the present case reveal how the emboldened unscrupulous field IO, go on a rampage and curtail the liberty of innocent citizens by gross misuse of their powers by implicating them falsely for the reasons best known to them," Metropolitan Magistrate Ashok Kumar said. "The complainant might have been in the dock and the accused a free man instead, but to much astonishment of the court, the IO has misused his powers, so much that exactly reverse has happened."
"This brazen misuse of powers deserves the highest form of castigation and disciplinary action in a way which has the tendency to create an example to such like field officers who intend to use their power to the detriment of innocent citizens," the magistrate said.
The court's remarks came while acquitting Delhi resident MC Rastogi, who was accused of injuring pedestrian Chandan Das by his rash and negligent driving on April 30, 2011. An FIR was lodged against Rastogi at KM Pur Police Station for rashly and negligently driving his car near Vikas Sadan here.
While acquitting Rastogi of the charges of rash and negligent driving and injuring a person, the court in its judgement said it was clear from the facts and circumstances that he has been "deliberately and falsely implicated".
The court also issued show cause notice to IO, head constable Sangeet, asking why adverse action be not taken against him.
"The IO has misused the powers as a field officer, a separate show cause notice of even date is issued to him as to why adverse action be not taken against him and also such reprehensible conduct be not reported to the concerned DCP... And (why) a separate copy be not sent to the ACP for disciplinary action against the IO under the rules 13(3) of Delhi Police (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, where it is mandatory for the DCP to take action against the subordinate rank police official where strictures are passed by magistrate or sessions judge courts to take disciplinary action against the IO," the magistrate said.
The court found various discrepancies in the probe and contradictions in the statements of prosecution witnesses and also lack of intrinsic truth in the prosecution case. It noted that the location and time of accident, mentioned in the testimonies of victim, IO and other witnesses, were different.
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
)
)
)
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}