A Delhi court pulled up a sub inspector with the Delhi Police for “attempting to misguide and mislead”, when he told the court that PCR staff do not forward exact details of an incident and only provide a gist of the complaint.
Additional Sessions Judge Lokesh Kumar Sharma said that the act by SI Ranjeev Kumar “not only amounts to various offences as mentioned in sections 175 (Omission to produce 1[document or electronic record] to public servant by person legally bound to produce it),176 (Omission to give notice or information to public servant by person legally bound to give it),177 (Furnishing false information) and 182 (False information, with intent to cause public servant to use his lawful power to the injury of another person) of the IPC, but also it reflects a gross misconduct on his part in attempting to misguide and mislead the court and a departmental disciplinary inquiry is warranted against him under specified disciplinary rules of Delhi Police.”
As per court records, the SI had appeared in a bail hearing in which he told the court that he was authorized by the investigating officer of the case to make submissions on his behalf. The SI told the court that additional sections of POCSO and SC/ST Prevention Act were added in the case on the basis of a statement made by the father of the victim.
The victim’s father, when asked about the incident, told the court that he made a PCR call but no action was taken by the police.
When the court asked the SI about the case details, he told the court that “initial PCR call was also made only about a small quarrel” and “sometimes the PCR persons do not forward the exact information received by them to the local police and only a gist of complaint is being sent.”
Additional Public Prosecutor Aditya, who was present in the hearing, interrupted the SI and told the court that “PCR calls are not only duly recorded but also, their written record is properly maintained by the control room officials.”
Granting bail to the accused in this hearing, the court said, “However, this police official appearing on behalf of IO has not been able to produce the exact text of the original PCR call made and has tried to act clever by making an attempt to misguide the Court to get swayed by his submissions. However in this attempt, he has forgotten that the Court is also familiar with the entire procedure adopted by the police department in recording all information received by it as well as their disposal by maintaining a proper record of the same.”