Disposed¶29

Rajiv Gumber v. Additional Director General

Delhi HC14 May 2025W.P.(CRL)/1803/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Delhi High Court 2025; W.P.(CRL) 1803/2023; W.P.(CRL) 2282/2023; CRL.M.A. 21383/2023; Sanjeev Narula J; DRI interrogation safeguards; presence of advocate during statement recording; videography of statement; handwritten statement; D.K. Basu compliance; Rajinder Arora interrogation timings; show cause notice issued; relief rendered infructuous; liberty to take legal defences; rights and contentions left open; petitions disposed of.

What did the court decide?

Petitions disposed of along with pending application(s); Petitioners free to take all legal defences in respect of the recorded statements during show cause adjudication; all rights and contentions of the parties left open. ¶29

Rajiv Gumber Vs Additional Director General — Delhi HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶29

Issue for consideration

Whether the Respondent's interrogation of the Petitioners should be regulated by safeguards such as the presence of the Petitioner's advocate during statement recording, videography of statements, and permission to record statements in the Petitioner's own handwriting. +1 more

¶18

Ratio / Principle

The relief sought in the writ petitions has been rendered infructuous because show cause notices have since been issued to both Petitioners, and no further directions are necessary.

¶26

Key takeaways

During the course of adjudication of the show cause, the Petitioners shall be free to take all legal defences in accordance with law in respect of the statements recorded, and any objections shall be considered in accordance with law.ratio¶27

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Delhi High Court (Sanjeev Narula, J.) disposed of two criminal writ petitions (W.P.(CRL) 1803/2023 – Rajiv Gumber; W.P.(CRL) 2282/2023 – Shaily Gumber) against the Additional Director General, which sought mandamus directions regulating the Respondent's interrogation of the Petitioners in case/file No DRI/HQ-CI/50-D/Int-13/2022/Pt. Rajgshag — presence of the Petitioner's advocate during statement recording, videography, handwritten statements, a Departmental Inquiry for alleged non-compliance with D.K. Basu, and interrogation restricted to 10 AM–5 PM per Rajinder Arora. Observing that no interim relief had been granted and that show cause notices have since been issued to both Petitioners, the Court held the relief rendered infructuous and found no further directions necessary, while permitting the Petitioners to take all legal defences in respect of the recorded statements during the show cause proceedings and leaving all rights and contentions of the parties open.

¶1

$~46, 47

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- W.P.(CRL) 1803/2023

¶4

RAJIV GUMBER .....Petitioner

¶5

Through: Mr. Chinmaya Seth, Advocate.

¶6

versus

¶7

ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR GENERAL .....Respondent Through: Mr. Anurag Ojha, Mr. Dipak Raj and Mr. Subham Kr., Advocates.

¶8

- W.P.(CRL) 2282/2023, CRL.M.A. 21383/2023 SHAILY GUMBER .....Petitioner

¶9

Through: Mr. Chinmaya Seth, Advocate.

¶10

versus

¶11

ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR GENERAL .....Respondent Through: Mr. Anurag Ojha, Mr. Dipak Raj and Mr. Subham Kr., Advocates.

¶12

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA

O R D E R

14.05.2025

In the present petitions, since the prayers are identical, only the prayer made in W.P.(CRL) 1803/2023 is being extracted hereinbelow to give context. The same is as follows:

¶17

“(i) Issue a writ or order in the nature of Mandamus or any other writ directing the Respondent to not conduct the investigation in a highhanded manner and ensure that the interrogation/interaction with the Petitioner is with legal safeguards as follows:

¶18

a. permit the presence of Petitioner’s advocate during the time of recording

¶19

This is a digitally signed order.

¶20

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 02/07/2025 at 01:05:58

¶21

of Petitioner’s statement, at a visible, but not audible distance in relation to the interrogation by the officers of Respondent against Petitioner in relation case/file No DRI/HQ-CI/50-D/Int-13/2022/Pt. Rajgshag; and

¶22

b. video graph the recording of Petitioner statements and also allow the Petitioner to write his statement in his own handwriting and sign the same in relation to case/file No CASE/FILE No DRI/HQ-CI/50-D/Int- 13/2022/Pt. Rajgshag; and

¶23

c. Direct that a Departmental Inquiry be conducted against the relevant officers for abusing their powers and non-compliance of the law laid down in D.K Basu vs. State of West Bengal (1997) 1 SCC 416; and

¶24

d. Direct the Respondent to conduct the interrogation of Petitioner in the case/file No DRI/HQ-CI/50-D/Int-13/2022/Pt. Rajgshag, in case required, during the time from 10 AM to 5 PM, on date (working day) of their choice, with usual breaks as per law laid down in Rajinder Arora Vs. Union of India & Ors [WP (Civil) 389 of2010- Supreme Court]”

¶25

Since no interim relief was granted, over the period of time, the proceedings in the impugned cases continued and now show cause notices have been issued to both the Petitioners by the Respondent.

¶26

In light of the above, the relief sought in the present petitions has been rendered infructuous and no further directions are necessary.

¶27

During the course of adjudication of the show cause, the Petitioners shall be free to take all legal defences in accordance with law, in respect of the statements recorded. Objections, if any, shall be considered in accordance with law.

¶28

All rights and contentions of the parties are left open.

¶29

With the above directions, the petitions are disposed of along with the pending application(s).

¶30

SANJEEV NARULA, J

¶31

MAY 14, 2025/ nk

¶32

This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 02/07/2025 at 01:05:58

Rajiv Gumber v. Additional Director General

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajiv Gumber v. Additional Director General

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ahmed Adeil & Ors. Vs the State of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Abhishek Kaushik Vs State N. C. T. of Delhi and Anr.

Rahul & Ors. Vs the State of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Vikram Pal Vs State Gnct of Delhi & Anr.

Tasleem Ahmad Vs Lieutenant Governor & Anr.

Kanta Prasad Vs State(Govt of NCT of Delhi)

Sumit @ Pawan Vs State (Nct of Delhi)

Rashid & Anr. Vs State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)

Chaman Lata Vs the State Govt of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Ashish Jain Vs Ashish Gupta

Surender Prashad Singh Vs State of NCT of Delhi

Ashok Kumar Yadav Vs the State (Nct of Delhi)

Shekhar Kansal Vs State NCT of Delhi & Anr.