Disposed

Dr. Subhash Vijayran v. Commissioner of Police & Ors.

Delhi HC1 May 2024W.P.(CRL)/1347/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Delhi High Court disposed of a writ petition challenging delayed post-mortem and investigation into a death. The court directed the CP to decide a representation on CBI involvement and ordered a forensic panel post-mortem.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner's representation to decide investigation transfer; Post-mortem by forensic panel from Govt Medical College.

Dr. Subhash Vijayran Vs Commissioner of Police & Ors. — Writ and Judicial Review | Delhi HC (2024)

¶1

$~35

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- W.P.(CRL) 1347/2024 DR. SUBHASH VIJAYRAN ..... Petitioner Through: Petitioner in person

¶4

versus

¶5

COMMISSIONER OF POLICE & ORS. ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Sanjay Lao, Standing Counsel (Crl.), GNCTD with Mr. Shivesh Kaushik and Mr. Abhinav Arya, Advocates ACP Vijay Nagar, Inspector Amul Tyagi, SHO with SI Jai Parkash, P.S. Farsh Bazaar % Date of Decision: 01^st May, 2024.

¶6

CORAM: HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA JUDGMENT

¶7

MANMOHAN, ACJ: (ORAL)

¶8

Present public interest petition has been filed seeking conduct of investigation into the case (DD No. 84A, dated 28^th March, 2024, P.S. Farsh Bazar, Shahdara District, Delhi) by an independent agency such as CBI. The Petitioner-in-person further prays for issuance of direction to the Respondent No. 1 to conduct the post-mortem examination of the deceased, Mohd. Rizwan son of Mehraj Nabi, by a panel of forensic doctors from one of the medical colleges in Delhi.

¶9

Signature Not Verified

¶10

Digitally Signed By:JASWANT SINGH RAWAT Signing Date:02.05.2024 17:58:28

¶11

Page 1 of 4

¶12

W.P.(CRL) 1347/2024

¶13

The Petitioner-in-person states that on 28^th March, 2024, an unknown dead body (which was later identified) of thirty-year-old man was recovered from a nallah in Shahdara, under jurisdiction of P.S. Farsh Bazar, which was preserved at Sabzi Mandi mortuary and fingerprints were taken for identification. He states that only on 25^th April, 2024, i.e. after a gap of 28 days, the Respondent No. 3/Investigating Officer (IO) requested the Petitioner-in-person to conduct post-mortem of the deceased, notwithstanding the fact that the body was substantially decomposed, full of infection, with all the evidence lost in contrast to a fresh body. He states that Respondent Nos. 2 & 3 violated the Standing Orders of Delhi Police and the order dated 10^th January, 2024 passed by this Court in W.P(C) No. 3242/2023, titled ‘ Dr. Subhash Vijayran vs. Commissioner of Police ’, which mandates conducting of post-mortem examination within 72 hours.

¶14

He alleges that it is a routine practice of the IOs to request postmortems after considerable delay, i.e., much later than 72 hours, thus destroying valuable evidence in the process. 4. Petitioner-in-person suspects that despite irrefutable and conclusive identification of the accused vide fingerprint report dated 10^th April, 2024, the Respondent No. 3/IO wasted two more weeks in his so-called efforts to establish the identity of the deceased, by newspaper publications etc. He states that such a step was taken by Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 on the basis of incorrect statements of the father and brother of the deceased whereby they refused to identify the body. He further suspects that Respondent Nos. 2 & 3, by deliberate omissions and commissions, acted to hush up a possible murder case and in order to destroy all the incriminatory evidence, thereby rendering the post-mortem examination a mere formality.

¶15

Signature Not Verified

¶16

Digitally Signed By:JASWANT SINGH RAWAT Signing Date:02.05.2024 17:58:28

¶17

Page 2 of 4

¶18

W.P.(CRL) 1347/2024

¶19

The Petitioner-in-person states that he has not received any response to his representation dated 29^th April, 2024 addressed to Respondent No. 1/Commissioner of Police with regard to delayed request for conduct of post-mortem of the deceased Mohd. Rizwan son of Mehraj Nabi.

¶20

Per contra, learned Standing Counsel (Criminal), Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi (GNCTD) states that the post mortem in the present case was delayed as the family members of the deceased had refused to identify the body even after a dossier had been prepared on the basis of finger print report. He states that the Respondents have no objection to the post mortem examination being conducted by a panel of forensic doctors by any medical college. He contends that the Petitioner without conducting a post mortem cannot possibly allege that the police is trying to hush up a possible murder case.

¶21

Since, transfer of investigation to Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) is done only in the rarest of rare cases and as in the present case, a representation has been made to the Commissioner of Police by the Petitioner himself on 29^th April, 2024, the present writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the Commissioner of Police to decide the Petitioner’s representation dated 29^th April, 2024 in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible preferably within one week. The Commissioner of Police while deciding the representation shall keep in mind the alleged breach of the standing order of the Delhi Police as well as the order dated 10^th January, 2024 passed by this Court in W.P.(C) 3242/2023.

¶22

The Delhi Police is further directed to ensure that the post mortem examination of the deceased Mohd. Rizwan is carried by a panel of forensic doctors from any Government Medical College in Delhi forthwith.

¶23

Signature Not Verified

¶24

Digitally Signed By:JASWANT SINGH RAWAT Signing Date:02.05.2024 17:58:28

¶25

Page 3 of 4

¶26

W.P.(CRL) 1347/2024

¶27

With the aforesaid directions, the present writ petition stands disposed

¶28

of.

¶29

ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE

¶30

MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, J

¶31

MAY 1, 2024/ msh

¶32

Signature Not Verified

¶33

Digitally Signed By:JASWANT SINGH RAWAT Signing Date:02.05.2024 17:58:28

¶34

Page 4 of 4

¶35

W.P.(CRL) 1347/2024

Dr. Subhash Vijayran v. Commissioner of Police & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr. Subhash Vijayran v. Commissioner of Police & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Anil Kumar Vs State (Gnct of Delhi)

Farukh @ Chapta Vs Union of India & Anr.

Vinay Rai Vs Lt Governor of Delhi & Anr.

Gagan and Anr. Vs the State of NCT of Delhi through

Prabhat Krishna Vs State NCT of Delhi and Ors.

Sushil Kumar Verma Vs State

Sanjay Kaushik Vs State of NCT of Delhi

Ritu Rajput Vs the State NCT of Delhi and Ors.

VI Exports India Private Limited Vs Union of India

D M South India Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. Vs Union of India and Ors.

Razia Begum Vs the Appellate Court of Divisional Commissioner and Ors.

Amarjeet Gupta Vs Election Commission of India & Ors.

The Bhagat Cooperative Industrial Society Ltd. Vs Registrar Cooperative Societies & Anr.

Jyoti Nambiar Vs Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Ors.