Delhi High Court Reaffirms Limited Scope of Writ Jurisdiction Under Article 226: Statutory Remedies Must Be Exhausted Before Addressing Alleged Police Misconduct and Custodial Torture

1. Court’s Decision

The High Court of Delhi dismissed the petition filed under Article 226, stating that:

1. The petitioner had adequate remedies under the Cr.P.C., such as filing a complaint under Sections 156(3) or 200.
2. The High Court’s extraordinary writ jurisdiction should not be invoked to address disputed factual claims unless statutory remedies have been exhausted.

The Court reiterated that it cannot function as a fact-finding body or bypass established statutory mechanisms.

2. Facts of the Case

1. Incident Background: The petitioner alleged that on May 17, 2021, police officials illegally detained him after summoning him to the police station concerning a false PCR call he allegedly made.
2. Allegations: He claimed he was severely beaten by police officials during illegal custody and suffered a spinal fracture.
3. Medical Evidence: After his release, he sought medical treatment two days later, and reports indicated a spinal fracture.
4. Complaints: Despite filing complaints with the police, Commissioner of Police, and Vigilance Department, no criminal action was taken against the accused officials.
5. Contradictory Inquiries: A Vigilance Inquiry substantiated the petitioner’s allegations; however, a subsequent departmental inquiry exonerated the police officials.

3. Issues

The main legal questions before the Court were:

1. Whether the petitioner could bypass statutory remedies under the Cr.P.C. and invoke Article 226 for redressal.
2. Whether the petitioner had sufficiently established his claims of custodial torture and illegal detention to warrant the Court’s intervention.

4. Petitioner’s Arguments

The petitioner argued:

1. His fundamental rights under Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution were violated by police officials through illegal detention and custodial torture.
2. The findings of the Vigilance Report substantiated his allegations and warranted immediate criminal action.
3. Despite multiple representations, no steps were taken against the implicated officials.

5. Respondent’s Arguments

The respondents presented a strong defense:

1. CCTV Evidence: Footage showed the petitioner walking normally after his release, contradicting his claim of severe injury.
2. Departmental Inquiry: A detailed departmental inquiry exonerated the officials, finding no evidence to support the petitioner’s claims.
3. Delay in Medical Examination: The petitioner’s medical reports were dated two days after the alleged incident, undermining their evidentiary value.
4. Alternative Remedies: The petitioner had not exhausted statutory remedies available under the Cr.P.C.

6. Analysis of the Law

The Court analyzed the legal framework and precedents:

1. Writ Jurisdiction (Article 226): The Court clarified that writ jurisdiction is discretionary and meant for exceptional cases involving gross violations of rights or manifest injustice. It cannot replace statutory remedies.
2. Statutory Remedies Under Cr.P.C.:
   • Section 156(3): Allows a Magistrate to direct police to register an FIR and investigate.
   • Section 200: Empowers a Magistrate to take cognizance of an offense based on a private complaint.

The Court concluded that these remedies were sufficient for the petitioner to address his grievances.

7. Precedent Analysis

The Court referred to several judgments:

1. Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P. (2008):
   • High Courts should not be the first recourse for grievances of improper investigation or police inaction.
   • Magistrates under Section 156(3) and 200 of the Cr.P.C. have wide powers to address such complaints.
2. M. Subramaniam v. S. Janaki (2020):
   • Statutory remedies must be exhausted before invoking writ jurisdiction.
3. Aleque Padamsee v. Union of India (2007):
   • High Courts should refrain from intervening in factual disputes better resolved by statutory mechanisms.

8. Court’s Reasoning

The Court provided the following rationale:

1. Statutory Mechanisms Are Adequate: The Cr.P.C. provides a robust framework for addressing grievances related to police misconduct or inaction.
2. CCTV and Inquiry Findings: The departmental inquiry and CCTV evidence undermined the petitioner’s claims of custodial torture.
3. Role of Writ Jurisdiction: The Court reiterated that Article 226 cannot be used to resolve disputed factual claims or replace statutory procedures.

The Court noted that the petitioner still had the option to file a private complaint under Section 200 of the Cr.P.C. for further investigation or action.

9. Conclusion

The petition was dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to approach the Magistrate under Section 200 of the Cr.P.C. for an independent inquiry. The Court emphasized that all contentions were left open for adjudication before the appropriate forum.

10. Implications

This judgment highlights:

1. Reinforcement of Statutory Mechanisms: High Courts must exercise restraint and encourage litigants to utilize statutory remedies.
2. Clarity on Writ Jurisdiction: Article 226 is not a substitute for statutory procedures and is meant for exceptional cases only.
3. Encouragement of Judicial Discipline: The judgment underscores the need to adhere to established legal mechanisms, ensuring effective and orderly justice delivery.

This decision reaffirms the principle that extraordinary jurisdiction should not undermine statutory processes, setting a precedent for similar cases involving alleged police misconduct.

Also Read – Delhi High Court Dismisses GNCTD’s Pleas, Reaffirms Tribunal’s Ruling That Deputy Director of Education Lacked Authority to Act as Disciplinary Authority in Penalizing Teachers Under CCS (CCA) Rules