High Court directs police to refrain from filing status report in 'casual' manner
New Delhi: The Delhi High Court has directed Delhi Police officials to refrain from filing status reports in a "casual" and "cavalier" manner.
A division bench of justices Siddharth Mridul and Sangita Dhingra directed the officials to exercise caution, care and diligence while responding to proceedings pending before the court.
"The officers of the Delhi Police are directed to eschew from filing status reports in a casual and cavalier manner," it said.
The bench's observations came while discharging a criminal contempt notice issued to a station house officer of Mayur Vihar Police Station in East Delhi by a single judge of the high court for allegedly making a wrong statement in a status report filed in the court.
The bench observed that officials of Delhi Police are required to be held to the high standards by which they profess their conduct to be judged.
"In view of the foregoing, the notice of criminal contempt issued to the concerned SHO is hereby discharged, whilst directing him to exercise due caution, henceforth. The officers of the Delhi Police are directed to eschew from filing status reports in a casual and cavalier manner," the bench said.
The single judge was hearing a petition by a woman seeking directions to remove derogatory remarks made against her and her community by a post on a social networking site.
On court's direction, a status report was filed by the SHO concerned in which it was stated that "a letter has been sent to .... (social networking site) through Cyber Cell East Delhi to remove the contents/ photographs uploaded on the site in connection with the petitioner (woman)."
However, the single judge later came to know that at the time of filing of status report, no communication had been addressed to the social networking site by the competent authority for removing the alleged objectionable material posted on its website.
The single judge then made a reference to the division bench for initiating appropriate action for criminal contempt against the SHO concerned.
The SHO expressed unconditional regret and apology for the language error that occurred on his behalf.
The division bench in its order said,"however, in our considered view, although the expression employed by the concerned SHO in the subject status report could be said to misdirect the proceedings, the same in our view does not constitute a deliberate and wilful attempt to mislead the court or interfere in the administration of justice".