Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 4, Cited by 1]

Supreme Court - Daily Orders

Afshan Pracha vs Union Of India on 11 May, 2018

Bench: Chief Justice, A.M. Khanwilkar, D.Y. Chandrachud

     ITEM NO.41               COURT NO.1               SECTION X

                    S U P R E M E  C O U R T  O F  I N D I A
                            RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

     Writ Petition(s)(Criminal)  No(s).113/2018

     AFSHAN PRACHA                                      Petitioner(s)

                                     VERSUS

     UNION OF INDIA & ORS.                              Respondent(s)

Date : 11­05­2018 This petition was called on for hearing today.

CORAM : 

         HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE          HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.M. KHANWILKAR          HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE D.Y. CHANDRACHUD For Petitioner(s) Ms. Indira Jaising, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Mahalaxmi Pawani, Sr. Adv. Mr. Rudro Chatterjee, Adv. Ms. Tasneem Ahmadi, Adv. Ms. Manisha Tyagi, Adv. Ms. Sunita Bhardwaj, Adv. Mr. Mehmood Pracha, Adv. Ms. Sudha Gupta, Adv.
Ms. Lily Thomas, Adv.
Ms. Sufia Aqil, Adv.
Mr. Digvijay Singh, Adv. Mr. R.H.A. Sikander, Adv. Ms. Deepa Sriniwasan, Adv. Mr. Prateek Gupta, Adv. Mr. Danish, Adv.
Mr. Mohd. Danish, Adv. Mr. Dilawar Abbas, Adv. Mr. Rehan Ahmad, Adv.
Mr. Amir Naseem, Adv.
Mr. A. Chaliha, Adv.
Mr. Sanjay Jain, Adv. [AOR]                     For Respondent(s) Mr. Aman Lekhi, ASG Signature Not Verified Mr. Zoheb Hossain, Adv. Digitally signed by SUBHASH CHANDER Mr. Rohit Bhat, Adv.
for Date: 2018.05.11 17:37:26 IST Reason:
Mr. B.V. Balaramdas, Adv. [AOR] WP(Crl.)No.113/18 ... (contd.) ­ 2 ­ DBA Mr. Ramesh Gupta, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Manish Kr. Singh, Adv.
Mr. Rajiv Khosla, Adv.
Mr. Surender Chauhan, Adv.
Mr. Vikas Singh, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Manan Kr. Mishra, Sr. Adv.
Delhi High Court Mr. A.D.N. Rao, Adv.
Mr. A. Venkatesh, Adv.
Mr. Sudipto Sircar, Adv.
Mr. Rahul Mishra, Adv.
Mr. Tulika Chikker, Adv.
Mr. Arun Kumar, Adv.
Mr. Dheeraj Kr. Singh, Adv.
Mr. Manish Jain, Adv.
Mr. Prakash Sharma, Adv.
Mr. Mohd. Naved, Adv.
                    
          UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following                              O R D E R When the petitioner, a practising lawyer, approached this Court   on   09.05.2018,   this   Court   had   passed   a  long   order   and issued the following directions :
“(i) The   petitioner   shall   be   given   adequate   police protection   by   the   Commissioner   of   Police,   New   Delhi so   that   her   statement   can   be   recorded   under   Section 164 Cr.P.C.;
(ii) The statement under Section 164, Cr.P.C. shall be recorded   by   the   Chief   Metropolitan   Magistrate   at Patiala House Courts, New Delhi;
(iii)   The   security   that   shall   be   granted   to   the petitioner   should   be   the   women   police   officers   of appropriate rank;
(iv) The   Bar   Association   of   Tis   Hazari   Court   is restrained   from   going   on   strike   or   participating   in any kind of boycott of any Court in Tis Hazari or any other Court.” WP(Crl.)No.113/18 ... (contd.) ­ 3 ­ We   have   been   apprised   that   the   statement   of   the petitioner   under   Section   164,   Cr.P.C.   has   already   been recorded   by   the   concerned   Chief   Metropolitan   Magistrate   at Patiala House Courts, New Delhi.

In the course of hearing, we have been apprised that the petitioner has lodged an FIR bearing No.124/2018 at P.S. Subzi Mandi,   Delhi   and   a   counter­FIR   bearing   No.123/2018   has   also been lodged.

Ms. Indira Jaising, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner and the petitioner submit that the counter­FIR is a manipulated one and has been lodged by persons who have been instigated by the accused in her FIR.

On the contrary, there is a submission on behalf of the learned counsel for the respondents that the FIR is genuine.

The question whether any of the FIRs is genuine or not, cannot be decided by this Court in a petition under Article 32 of   the   Constitution   of   India.     It   is   a   matter   for investigation and eventual trial.  We leave it at that.

In the course of further hearing, learned counsel for the parties   further   submitted   that   the   cases   arising   out   of   the FIRs   lodged   under   Section   154,   Cr.P.C.   should   proceed.     We accordingly   order   that   the   said   FIRs   shall   be   dealt   with   in accordance with law.

Regard   being   had   to   the   facts   and   circumstances,   it   is directed as follows :

(i) An officer of the rank of Assistant Commissioner of Police (ACP), Crime Branch, New Delhi shall investigate into both the FIRs.
(ii) In   both   the   FIRs,   though   lodged   at   P.S.   Subzi Mandi, Delhi, if eventually chargesheets are filed and trial is held, for all purposes it shall be at Patiala House Courts, New Delhi.

WP(Crl.)No.113/18 ... (contd.) ­ 4 ­

(iii)The petitioner who is the accused in the counter­ FIR   and   the   accused   named   in   the   FIR   lodged   by   the petitioner shall not be arrested.

(iv) When we say that they shall not be arrested, it is requisite that neither of the parties shall create any kind   of   acrimonious   atmosphere   or   tamper   with   the witnesses or any evidence which is likely to be brought on   record.     They   shall   also   co­operate   in   the investigation.

(iv) There shall be a fair trial and ‘fair trial’ means none   of   the   parties   or   any   member   of   the   Bar   shall create any obstruction because that is the sanctity of rule of law and the said position has been accepted by the   counsel   for   the   parties.     Needless   to   say,   our aforesaid   observations   will   not   debar   the   parties   to enter   into   a   settlement,   if   they   so   desire   and   they will also be at liberty to challenge any order passed by   the   concerned   Court   or   even   take   such   steps   for seeking quashing of the FIRs.  Be it further clarified that if any such petition is filed, the same shall be decided in accordance with law.

If the petitioner feels aggrieved with regard to any kind of   threat   perception,   she   is   entitled   to   approach   the   ACP, Crime Branch who, if satisfied, shall make arrangement for her security.

Before   parting   with   the   case,   we   request   the   learned Acting Chief Justice of High Court of Delhi to constitute the requisite   Committee   in   respect   of   the   High   Court   and   all District   Courts   at   Delhi,   if   it   has   already   not   been constituted,   as   per   the   mandate   of   The   Sexual   Harassment   of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013  as also  the guidelines contained in the judgment of this WP(Crl.)No.113/18 ... (contd.) ­ 5 ­ Court in the case of   Vishaka & Ors.  v.  State of Rajasthan & Ors. (1997) 6 SCC 241.

Be it noted, the said Committee(s) shall be constituted with quite promptitude.   Needless to say, no one should be a member of the Committee who is an accused in any criminal case.

As   far   as   the   question   of   constitution   of   such committee(s)   in   other   High   Courts/District   Courts   throughout the country is concerned, the learned Chief Justices of each of the High Courts are requested to constitute the Committees in High   Courts   as   well   as   the   District   Courts,   if   not   already constituted, within a span of two months.

The   Registry   of   this   Court   is   directed   to   communicate this order to the Registrars General of each of the High Courts so   that   they   can   place   the   same   before   the   learned   Chief Justice or Acting Chief Justice.

The   Registrars   General   of   the   High   Courts   shall   send   a Compliance   Report   with   regard   to   constitution   of   the Committee(s) in the High Courts and/or the District Courts on or   before   15th  July   2018.     Let   it   be   made   clear,   if   the Compliance Report is not filed within the said time, the matter shall be listed before the Court  suo motu  so that Ms. Indira Jaising   and   the   petitioner   can   address   this   Court   on   that singular aspect.

We   are   absolutely   sure,   the   Bar   which   maintains   the highest   tradition,   shall   maintain   a   peaceful   atmosphere   not only   in   Delhi   but   throughout   the   country   so   that   there   is   a fair and speedy trial and prevalence of peaceful atmosphere.

The writ petition is accordingly disposed of.



            (Subhash Chander)                    (H.S. Parasher)
               AR­cum­PS                       Assistant Registrar