Delhi court initiates contempt proceedings against Vikaspuri SHO

New Delhi, Sep 9 (PTI) A court here has initiated the contempt proceedings against a Delhi Police official for not following its directions to register an FIR against a private firm and few MCD officials.

Judicial Magistrate Rishabh Kapoor was hearing a matter where the court had earlier directed the station house office (SHO) of Vikaspuri, Rajveer Singh, to register a case for the offences of theft and common intention against Pineview Technology Pvt Ltd and officials concerned of MCD.

The directions dated September 1 and 3 stemmed from a case where Sushil Kumar Gupta had moved the court, alleging that his 15-year-old parked vehicle was illegally picked up by Pineview, the private agency hired by the MCD.

In an order dated September 8, the court said there was no stay by any superior court on its order regarding issuing a show cause notice to the SHO and for calling a report from the Joint Commissioner of Police concerned regarding the official’s conduct.

It said that despite two categorical orders, the SHO failed to register an FIR, thereby disregarding the court's lawful order and the statutory mandate.

"The omission of the SHO in not registering the FIR within 24 hours despite the directions dated September 1 and 3 is prima facie deliberate and willful. The aforesaid conduct of amounts to an offence punishable under Section 223 (disobedience to order promulgated by public servant) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS)," the court said.

It said that the official had also obstructed the administration of justice, besides causing annoyance to the complainant and the court.

“This court is therefore satisfied that it is expedient in the interest of justice to initiate proceedings under Section 379 read with Section 215 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) for commission of offence under Section 223 of the BNS,” the magistrate said.

BNSS Section 215 deals with “prosecution for contempt of lawful authority of public servants, for offences against public justice and for offences relating to documents given in evidence” while Section 379 deals with its procedure.

“As the Joint CP concerned has not filed any report regarding the act and conduct of SHO in terms of the order dated September 6, therefore, let a fresh notice be also issued,” the court said. PTI MNR NB