The Delhi Excessive Court docket lately dismissed a plea by the Delhi Police Commissioner difficult an order by the Nationwide Human Rights Fee (NHRC) which directed the police to pay compensation of Rs 50,000 to a physician for non-registration of an FIR.
The police commissioner was additionally difficult a show-cause discover issued to the deputy commissioner of police, South Delhi, on Could 13, 2023, underneath Part 18 of the Safety of Human Rights Act, 1993.
In November 2021, the physician had submitted a criticism to the NHRC alleging that sure miscreants had illegally trespassed into his clinic and outraged the modesty of his feminine workers. He had additionally contended that regardless of making a name to the police management room, the police didn’t take motion.
Taking cognizance of the criticism, the NHRC had directed the Deputy Commissioner of Police, South Delhi, to submit an Motion Taken Report (ATR) inside 4 weeks.
The police, as outlined within the ATR, had discovered throughout inquiry that the physician had taken a mortgage from a Non-Banking Monetary Firm (NBFC) and defaulted on cost due to Covid-19. Following this, 5 males from the NBFC arrived on the clinic for restoration. Noting that the loan-related settlement was finished subsequently, the police said that the complainant didn’t wish to pursue the matter additional.
The NHRC, nevertheless, first issued a show-cause discover on February 19, 2023, directing the police commissioner to clarify why it shouldn’t be held liable to pay Rs 50,000 as compensation to the complainant Dr Neeraj Kumar for the non-registration of a First Data Report (FIR).
A second show-cause discover was issued in Could that yr. The police filed its reply in August 2023 and subsequently the NHRC handed an order on September 27, 2023, recommending that the commissioner launch Rs 50,000 in compensation to Dr Kumar. One other inquiry was additionally performed on November 9, 2023, which was then positioned earlier than the rights panel by the police.
Story continues beneath this advert
Justice Sachin Datta, upholding the NHRC’s path towards the police, famous in his order dated February 24 that the alleged assertion of Dr Kumar, to the impact that he was not desirous of pursuing the matter, “seems to be misplaced.”
“It’s fairly incongruous that the assertion of the complainant (Dr Kumar) could be recorded by the exact same officer towards whom the complainant has lodged the criticism. There was no event for the exact same officer to strategy the complainant and query the complainant as as to whether the latter was desirous of pursuing his criticism earlier than the NHRC,” the order said.
“The motion of the involved delinquent officer, to report the assertion of (Dr Kumar) with regard to the latter’s criticism within the NHRC, is nothing wanting an try to receive a self-serving exculpatory assertion to avoid/keep away from the results of the criticism submitted to the NHRC,” Justice Datta’s order famous.
© The Indian Specific Pvt Ltd
