Saroj v. State
Case brief
What is this about?
In this writ petition, the petitioner sought transfer of investigation and addition of new charges regarding her son's death while clearing a drain. The Court held it could not order addition of sections but, doubting the investigating officer's competence, transferred the case to the District Intelligence Unit.
What did the court decide?
Investigation transferred to District Intelligence Unit (DIU) with direction to nominate a competent officer.
What the court decided
A compact analysis
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
$~17.
- IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
- W.P.(CRL) 3596/2016 SAROJ
..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Tanmay Mehta, Advocate with Mrs. Swati Gupta & Mr. S. Anand, Advocate versus STATE ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Rajesh Mahajan, ASC with SI Mahipal Singh, PS Malviya Nagar.
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI
O R D E R % 14.02.2017
The petitioner has filed the present petition, firstly, to seek a direction for transfer of investigation in case FIR No. 594/2016 from the present investigating officer to Crime Branch of Delhi Police or in the alternative to direct the Delhi Police to constitute a special investigation team (SIT) to investigate the offences under the said FIR. The petitioner also seeks a direction to the investigating agency to add Sections 34/304 IPC and Sections 22, 23 of the Prohibition of Employment as Manual Scavengers and Their Rehabilitation Act, 2013 and Section 3(j) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015
in the said FIR.
The case of the petitioner is that her young son was made to work in clearance of the drain – a sewer, without providing the proper gear, which led to his death due to electrocution. The petitioner claims that the accused contractor had knowledge that non provision of the proper protective gear may result in a fatality of the labour engaged in the task of sewer clearance.
Issues for consideration
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Court can direct the investigating agency to add specific penal provisions to the FIR in these proceedings
Whether the investigation appears competent and requires transfer to another wing due to peripherality
Parties & counsel
- petitioner
SAROJ
- respondent
STATE
Coram
VIPIN SANGHI
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court