A.K.SIKRI,J. - (1.) This case depicts sordid state of affairs about the functioning of Police and demonstrates that much police reforms are still needed. The events that have occurred in this case which have forced the petitioners to approach this Court directly by filing instant petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India show that proper police training with emphasis on sensitising them about the rights of the citizens is required.
(2.) The present petition has its genesis in the incident that occurred on May 28, 2009. Rather, it goes a little earlier in point of time. The petitioners who are siblings did their MBBS course in the Santosh Medical College at Ghaziabad in Uttar Pradesh. They had certain issues with P. Mahalingam, Chairman of the Maharaji Educational Trust which has established the aforesaid medical college. In order to redress their grievances, they filed Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 33 of 2009 in this Court under Article 32 of the Constitution of India. In the said writ petition, they had complained of the harassment meted out to them by the said Chairman as well as by the police which was acting under the influence of the said Chairman. On May 13, 2009, the Court issued notice in the writ petition. An order was passed by the Registrar of this Court on May 22, 2009 directing service of dasti notice on the un-served respondents which included SHO of Police Station, Sector - 39, Noida, Gautam Budh Nagar, Uttar Pradesh who was arrayed as respondent No. 4 in the writ petition. In order to serve the notice upon the SHO, the petitioners went to the Police Station on May 28, 2009 at 10:30 am. The SHO and his subordinates started brutally assaulting the petitioners with lathis, shoes and fists and caused numerous injuries on all parts of their bodies. The petitioners got themselves examined at Lok Nayak Government Hospital, New Delhi and an x-ray of petitioner No.1 was also taken which disclosed a fracture. A plaster was put on her left hand. The petitioners made a written complaint to the Senior Superintendent of Police (SSP), Noida on May 29, 2009 itself. However, he refused to accept the complaint. Against this apathy and inaction on the part of SSP in not agreeing to register the case, the petitioners filed Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 9226 of 2009 in the aforesaid writ petition. Order was passed in this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition that the same be placed along with the main matter. It is also observed that in the meantime, the petitioners may approach the District Magistrate, Noida regarding their grievances. The petitioners approached the District Magistrate, Noida, but they were informed that he was on vacation. The City Magistrate, however, called the petitioners to his office and took the video recorded statements but did not do anything in the matter. On July 20, 2009, this Court dismissed the Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 33 of 2009 and granted liberty to the petitioners to approach the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, if so advised. Thereafter, the petitioners filed Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 23839 of 2009 in the High Court praying inter alia for a CBI inquiry into the incident which took place on May 28, 2009 when the petitioners had gone to serve dasti summons on respondent No. 4. The High Court, however, held in the impugned order that in this case, the FIR had not been registered and there was no question for considering any prayer for CBI inquiry at this stage and instead directed that the petitioners may file an application under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and in case any such application is filed, the Magistrate may pass appropriate orders thereon. With the aforesaid observations, the High Court dismissed the writ petition.
(3.) This order was challenged by the petitioners by filing Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 666 of 2010, which became Criminal Appeal No. 2323 of 2011 after the leave was granted in that matter. The interim direction dated May 11, 2010 was given by the Court, after hearing the counsel for the parties, whereby the District and Sessions Judge, Gautam Budh Nagar, Uttar Pradesh was directed to inquire into the incident of May 28, 2009, when the petitioners had gone to serve the dasti summons of this Court to the SHO of Police Station Gautam Budh Nagar. The District and Sessions Judge assigned the inquiry to Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-III. He conducted the necessary inquiry and submitted his report dated November 16, 2010. Finding truth in the allegations made by the petitioners that they were mercilessly beaten up and thrashed by the police officials, objections to this report were allowed to be filed by the respondents, which were filed. Matter was heard thereafter and this Court decided Criminal Appeal No. 2323 of 2011 by detailed order dated December 16, 2011 accepting the report of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate. Since as per that report, conduct of some police officers were found to be blemished which also amounted to misconduct in performance of their duties, this Court directed the State of Uttar Pradesh/Disciplinary Authority to treat the report of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate as a preliminary report and initiate disciplinary proceedings against the concerned police personnel. Petitioners were also given liberty to file criminal complaint under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 on the basis of conclusion in the said report. It would be apt to reproduce the relevant portion of the aforesaid judgment dated December 16, 2011 passed by this Court which also captures the conclusion of the inquiry conducted by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate as well: "7. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, we passed orders on 11.05.2010 directing the District and Sessions Judge, Gautam Budh Nagar, U.P., to enquire into the incident of 28.05.2009 when the appellants had gone to serve the dasti summons of this Court and pursuant to the aforesaid order dated 11.05.2010, the District and Sessions Judge, Gautam Budh Nagar, U.P., assigned the inquiry to the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate III of Gautam Budh Nagar, U.P., who after conducting the enquiry has submitted the report dated 16.11.2010. We have considered the objections to the report and heard learned counsel for the parties. The conclusions in the report dated 16.11.2010 of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate III of Gautam Budh Nagar, U.P., are extracted herein below: "1. Ms. Monica Kumar and Shri Manish Kumar had gone to Sector 39 Police Station in Noida on 28.05.2009 for serving a dasti notice of Hon'ble 6 Supreme Court upon Shri Anil Samania, Station House Officer, Sector 39 Police Station in Noida. 2. Ms. Monica Kumar and Shri Manish Kumar were subjected to brutality in Sector 39 Police Station, Noida by Shri Anil Samania, Inspector, Shri J.K. Gangwar, Sub Inspector and few Constables. 3. Tailored entries have been made on 28.05.2009 in the General Diary of the Police Station for cover up. 4. The complaint in the matter was made with serious allegations against Shri Anil Samania but the complaint was not dealt with properly and the matter was given a decent burial. 5. The Sub-Inspector, In-Charge of the Complaint Cell in the office of the Senior Superintendent of Police, Gautam Budh Nagar, Shri Rishi Pal Singh, failed in his duty to place the complaint before the higher authorities for proper action in the matter. 6. The Superintendent of Police (Traffic), Gautam Budh Nagara, Shri Ajay Sahdav, failed in his supervisory duty in as much as without perusal of the accusations in the complaint and the action taken/required thereon, allowed entombment of the grievance in the complaint. 7. The Senior Superintendent of Police, Gautam Budh Bagar Shri Ashok Kumar Singh appears to have shut his eyes to what had happened in the Police Station on 28.05.2009. 8. Involvement of Dr. P. Mahalingam in the incident on 28.05.2009 could not be established. Thus, it cannot be said that the complainants were packed down at the will of the Chairman of Santosh Medical College, Ghaziabad, Shri P. Mahalingam." 8. Thus, the conclusions in the report dated 16.11.2010 of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate quoted above are that the appellants were subjected to brutality in Sector 39 Police Station, NOIDA, by Inspector Anil Samania (Respondent No.4), Shri J.K. Gangwar, Sub-Inspector and few constables and tailored entries were made on 28.05.2009 in the General Diary of the Police Station for a cover up and when a complaint was made to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Gautam Budh Nagar, U.P., the Sub-Inspector, In-charge of the Complaint Cell Shri Rishipal Singh failed in his duty to place the complaint before the higher authorities for proper action in the matter. The further conclusion in the report dated 16.11.2010 of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate is that the Superintendent of Police (Traffic), Gautam Budh Nagar, U.P., Ajay Sahdav, failed in his supervisory duty and allowed entombment of the grievance in the complaint and the Senior Superintendent of Police, Gautam Budh Nagar, Ashok Kumar Singh appears to have shut his eyes to what had happened in the Police Station on 28.05.2009. The conclusions in the report dated 16.11.2010 of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate prima facie establish acts and/or omissions of the various police personnel which were committed when the appellants had gone 8 to the police station to serve the dasti summons issued by this Court and which amount to misconduct of serious nature. We, therefore, direct the respondent No.1 to treat the report dated 16.11.2010 of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate III of Gautam Budh Nagar, U.P., as a preliminary report and initiate disciplinary proceedings against the police personnel named in the conclusions thereof and conduct the disciplinary proceedings in accordance with the relevant rules, giving to the police personnel reasonable opportunity of being heard in respect of the charges as provided in the Rules and in Article 311(2) of the Constitution and complete the disciplinary proceedings within one year from today. 9. It will also be open for the appellants to file criminal complaint under Section 200 of the Cr.P.C. on the basis of the conclusions in the report dated 16.11.2010 of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate III of Gautam Budh Nagar, U.P., before the appropriate Magistrate for prosecuting only those police personnel who are alleged to have committed any offence, and if such a complaint is filed, the same will be dealt with in accordance with law. 10. The impugned order of the High Court is set aside and the appeal is allowed to the extent indicated above. No costs." ;