ABCDversusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.

                        [2019] 15 S.C.R. 1                               1


                               ABCD                                      A
                                  v.
                    UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
              (Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 191 of 2018)
                                                                         B
                       DECEMBER 10, 2019
    [UDAY UMESH LALIT AND INDU MALHOTRA, JJ.]
       Investigation: Transfer of investigation to Central Agency –
FIR No.58 of 2018 filed by the petitioner against respondent no.7-
Police Officer alleging that respondent no.7 took undue advantage        C
of her situation and had forcible intercourse with her – Writ of
Mandamus filed by the petitioner seeking directions that the
investigation arising out said FIR be transferred from Delhi Police
to an independent Central Agency – Held: The investigation into
the crime registered pursuant to FIR No.58 of 2018 was conducted         D
by a Special Investigation Team and a charge-sheet has been filed
– The apprehension that was expressed at some stage that the mobile
phones belonging to Respondent No.7 were not being taken in
custody, was dealt with and it was ensured that said mobiles were
taken into custody of the investigating agency – The data from those
mobiles was also sought to be recovered and Respondent No.7 did          E
extend cooperation in ensuring that the data could be retrieved –
However, the assertion on behalf of the petitioner was that complete
data was not retrieved – Both the mobile phones were also sent for
forensic analysis – It was suggested by the petitioner that certain
pictures may have been taken by Respondent No.7, which data is           F
not presently available – However, extracts from iCloud was fully
available with the investigating agency – The contention that the
mobile phone of the Investigating Officer was damaged may not be
material as details of any conversation between the petitioner and
the Investigating Officer, may also be proved through the mobile
                                                                         G
phone of the petitioner herself – There was thus, nothing substantial
which could either show that the investigation was not well directed
or had failed to look into a particular direction – Therefore, nothing
further is required to be done – Petitioner is directed that if any
video or audio recordings are still being retained by her, same may
                                                                         H
                                  1
2            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                      [2019] 15 S.C.R.


A   be handed over to the Special Investigation Team – It is left to the
    Special Investigation Team to consider whether that part needs to
    be dealt with in the supplementary charge-sheet which, is
    contemplated to be filed.
           Investigation: Transfer of investigation to Central Agency –
B   FIR filed by the mother of Respondent no.7 that the petitioner and
    her family members had been pressurising the family of respondent
    no.7 to pay a sum of Rs.15 lakhs failing which they were threatened
    with filing of cases with allegations of rape and other criminal cases
    against respondent no.7 – Writ of Mandamus filed by the petitioner
C   seeking directions that the investigation arising out the FIR filed by
    the mother of respondent no.7 be transferred to an independent
    Central Agency; that the Investigating Agency to immediately collect
    Call Detail Records of the mobile numbers and confiscate the two
    mobile phones of the accused and to retrieve the CCTV footage of
    the hotel where the accused took her to commit the offence of rape;
D   that protection to the petitioner and her family members be given –
    Held: As regards the crime registered pursuant to FIR lodged by the
    mother of Respondent No.7, protection was afforded to the petitioner
    and her family members and the application under s.438 of the
    Code was also dealt with – An application filed by the petitioner
E   under s.482 of the Code is also pending with the High Court –
    Thus, petitioner invoked the processes of the court and was afforded
    adequate protection – No reason to transfer the investigation to
    any other agency.
          Contempt of court: In FIR No. 314, as well as in the application
F   preferred thereafter, insinuation was made by petitioner that
    Respondent No.7 had arranged attack on her and was responsible
    for the incident wherein she was hit by a car – However, CCTV
    footage showed that she was not hit by a car but by a thela (rickshaw)
    which prima facie meant that the allegations in her sworn statement
    before the Court were not truthful – Making a false statement on
G
    oath is an offence punishable under s.181 of the IPC while
    furnishing false information with intent to cause public servant to
    use his lawful power to the injury of another person is punishable
    under s.182 of the IPC – These offences by virtue of s.195(1)(a)(i)

H
               ABCD v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.                             3


of the Code can be taken cognizance of by any court only upon a          A
proper complaint in writing as stated in said Section – In the
circumstances, a notice is required to be issued to the petitioner in
suo motu exercise of power of this Court “why action in contempt
be not initiated against her and why appropriate direction be not
passed under s.195(1)(a)(i) of the Code” – Registry directed to          B
register the matter as suo motu proceedings – Penal Code, 1860 –
ss.181, 182 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.195(1)(a)(i).
      Pushpadevi M. Jatia v. M.L. Wadhawan etc. (1987) 3
      SCC 367 : [1987] 3 SCR 46; Chandra Shashi v. Anil
      Kumar Verma (1995) 1 SCC 421 : [1994] 5 Suppl. SCR                 C
      465; K.D. Sharma v. Steel Authority of India Limited
      and others (2008) 12 SCC 481 : [2008] 10 SCR 454;
      Dhananjay Sharma v. State of Haryana and others
      (1995) 3 SCC 757 : [1995] 3 SCR 964 – relied on
                       Case Law Reference                                D
[1987] 3 SCR 46                 relied on               Para 15
[1994] 5 Suppl. SCR 465         relied on               Para 16
[2008] 10 SCR 454               relied on               Para 16
[1995] 3 SCR 964                relied on               Para 16          E
      CRIMINAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition
(Criminal) No. 191 of 2018.
      [UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA]
      Aman Lekhi, ASG, Ms. Sonia Mathur, Sr. Adv., Sushil Kumar          F
Dubey, Ms. Divya Nair, Anuj Aggarwal, Puneet Pathak, Avadh Bihari
Kaushik, Mohd. Akhil, Ms. Suhasini Sen (For B. V. Balaram Das), Suhaan
Mukerji, Ms. Astha Sharma, Ms. Prastut Dalvi, Amit Verma, Abhishek
Manchanda, Ms. Kajal Dalal, Naveen Kumar, M/s. PLR Chambers And
Co., Manoj V. George, Md. Irshad Hanif, Ms. Shilpa Liza George, Rizwan
                                                                         G
Ahmad, Mujahid Ahmad, Ms. Akriti Jai, K. Panmei, Shifaz R. Dheen,
Renjith V. Philip, Ms. Bhavika, Hemant Sharma, Ms. Babila K.K., A.B.
Kaushik, Avadh Bihari Kaushik, Dr. Monika Gusain, Ms. Manpreet Kaur
Bhalla, Advs. for the appearing parties.

                                                                         H
4              SUPREME COURT REPORTS                                [2019] 15 S.C.R.


A          The Order of the Court was passed by
           UDAY UMESH LALIT, J.
          1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner1 above-named
    seeking following directions:
B          “I. Writ of Mandamus to the extent that the investigation arising
           out of FIR No.58/2018 U/S 376,328,506 & 509 IPC 1860, be
           transferred from Delhi Police to an independent Central Agency.
           II. Writ of Mandamus to State of West Bengal to suspend the
           accused (Respondent No.7) herein and initiate departmental
C          proceedings against him and direct him not to influence the witness
           of this crime to ensure free and fair investigation.
           III. Order the transfer of the investigation arising out of FIR
           No.256/2018 dated 03.06.2018 under Section 384, 389, 34 IPC
           registered at Basirhat PS, West Bengal to a Central Agency and
D          till then stay the investigation.
           IV. Direct the Investigating Agency to immediately collect Call
           Detail Records (CDR) of the mobile numbers and confiscate the
           two mobile phones of the accused and to retrieve the CCTV
           footage of Lalit Hotel on 27.01.2018 to 29.01.2018 of the lobby,
E          restaurant and room number 2603 where the accused took the
           petitioner to commit the offence of rape.
           V. Order protection to the petitioner and her family members.
           VI. Any other order or directions to secure justice to the petitioner
           which this court may deem fit and proper.”
F
         2. FIR No.58 of 2018 filed by the petitioner with Police Station
    Barakhambha Road, New Delhi alleged:
           That the petitioner and Respondent No.7 herein (an IPS Officer)
           became friends through exchanges on Facebook and started
           meeting each other. There were talks of marriage. On 28.01.2018,
G
           Respondent No.7 had come to Delhi and was putting up at Hotel
           Lalit. After having spent the entire day with Respondent No.7,


    1 In terms of Section 228A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, the Identity of the


H   Petitioner is not being disclosed.
    ABCD v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. [UDAY UMESH LALIT, J.]                       5


          the petitioner went to the room of Respondent No.7 where he          A
          offered some chocolates to her. She fell quite dizzy after she had
          the chocolates. Taking advantage of her situation Respondent No.7
          made physical advances and had sexual intercourse with her.
          Thereafter for some time, there were discussions between the
          families to carry forward their relationship to the next level of
                                                                               B
          marriage but Respondent No.7 abruptly told the petitioner on
          10.02.2018 that there could be no relationship between them.
          Alleging that Respondent No.7 had taken undue advantage of her
          situation and had forcible intercourse with her on 28.01.2018 said
          FIR was filed on 26.05.2018.
      3. On or about 03.06.2018, FIR No.256 of 2018 was filed by the           C
mother of Respondent No.7 submitting that the petitioner and her family
members had been pressurising the family of Respondent No.7 to pay to
them a sum of Rs.15 lakhs failing which they were threatened with filing
of cases with allegations of rape and other criminal cases against
Respondent No.7. It was alleged that succumbing to the pressure so             D
exerted, a sum of Rs.5 lakhs was paid to the brother of the petitioner on
04.02.2018 and the rest of the amount was to be paid within three months.
FIR, thus alleged commission of offences punishable under Sections
384, 389 read with 34 IPC2.
       4. It must be stated that protection under Section 438 of the Code 3    E
was granted to the present petitioner and her family members which
protection is still continuing and a petition under Section 482 of the Code3
has also been filed by the petitioner seeking quashing of said FIR No.256
of 2018, on which notice has been issued.
      5. It was in the background of these two FIRs that this writ petition    F
came to be filed submitting, inter alia that since the Respondent No.7
belonged to police service, there was apprehension that the investigation
by Delhi Police into the FIR lodged by the petitioner may not be proper
and fair. The petitioner also adverted to certain facets of the matter,
namely, that the investigating agency had delayed the recording of the
statement of the petitioner under Section 164 of the Code3; that no CCTV       G
footage of Hotel Lalit were attempted to be obtained. In these
circumstances it was prayed that the investigation be transferred from
Delhi Police to an independent police agency. Further, the FIR lodged by
2   Indian Penal Code, 1860
3   Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973                                           H
6            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                        [2019] 15 S.C.R.


A   the mother of Respondent No.7 was stated to be a deliberate attempt to
    rope in the petitioner and her family and it was prayed that the
    investigation into said FIR may also be entrusted to an independent
    agency.
           6. On 19.06.2018 the investigation into FIR No.58 of 2018 was
B   transferred to Crime Branch of Delhi Police and thereafter sometime in
    August 2018, the present writ petition came to be filed for the reliefs
    stated hereinabove.
          7. This writ petition was heard from time to time and it maybe
    relevant to note the following developments.
C          (a) On 23.07.2019 the submissions of the petitioner were recorded
    that the investigating agency had not recovered CCTV footages from
    the concerned Hotel and that material available in electronic form with
    Respondent No.7 was also not retrieved by the investigating agency.
    The Investigating Officer who was present in Court, submitted that no
D   CCTV footage could be procured as the footages are preserved by the
    Hotel only for a month and the incident itself was reported more than
    three months later. It was also stated that a mobile belonging to
    Respondent No.7 was taken into custody by the Investigating Officer
    while the other mobile belonging to him did not have any material and as
    such the same was returned to Respondent No.7. In the circumstances
E   it was directed that the investigators shall take into custody the other
    mobile of Respondent No.7 and send both the mobiles for forensic
    analysis. It was also directed that the investigation into the matter be
    conducted at an early date;
           (b) On 11.09.2019 it was informed that after due investigation
F   charge-sheet was filed in the matter. It was stated that second mobile of
    Respondent No.7 was also taken into custody and attempts were made
    to extract the Metadata for the opinion of the experts. The submissions
    of the petitioner and Respondent No.7 were recorded as under:
          “It was submitted by Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, learned Senior
G         Advocate that the investigation in connection with recovery of
          data from these two phones was not proper and there was no co-
          operation from the accused.
          It must be stated that the Charge-sheet does not suggest that
          because of any lack of cooperation on part of the accused in not
H
ABCD v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. [UDAY UMESH LALIT, J.]                         7


      providing or supplying the Code Number, the Mobile Phone could         A
      not be operated or opened. It must also be stated that Ms. Sonia
      Mathur, learned Senior Advocate for the accused has very fairly
      supplied the Code Number (No.220192) and stated that this Code
      Number applies to both the Mobile Phones, with the help of which
      said Mobile Phones could normally be opened.”
                                                                             B
       (c) On 21st October, 2019 Crl.M.P. No.162386 of 2019 was filed
by the petitioner seeking police protection after having highlighted an
incident that had occurred on 18.10.2019. In respect of said incident, the
petitioner had filed FIR No.314 with Police Station Kotla Mubarak Pur,
District South Delhi, alleging, inter alia:
                                                                             C
      “I was going back to my home from Defence Colony in front of I
      phone store opposite red light suddenly one car came from back
      side and hit me. I was bruised and tried to stop the driver but he
      run away from there. I was injured so I made call 100 number
      help and hired an auto from there because I was feeling very
      unsafe there. I reached at my residence. PCR came and took me          D
      to AIIMS Trauma Centre. I immediately made a call to SIT
      (reference FIR bearing No.0058/18 with PS Barakhamba Road
      New Delhi dated 26.05.2018) but they didn’t take my calls. I
      made a call to concerned DCP and Whatsappmsg for the same.”
      The FIR also stated that the petitioner had strong apprehension        E
that Respondent No.7 had attacked her. It was further stated that CCTV
Footage available be seized.
      In the application filed in this Court it was stated:
      “Needless to say that the Petitioner’s life has been shadowed and      F
      her life has been under threat and clandestine scanner by the
      Accused who being an IPS officer had been adopting all means
      to make the Petitioner succumb to his deeds. Henceforth the
      Petitioner submits that her life under the radar of the Accused
      IPS officer would come to an end, if adequate protection and
      measures are not granted by this Hon’ble Court.”                       G
      (d) On 24.10.2019, the order stated that in terms of the directions
issued on 11.09.2019 attempts were made to retrieve data from the
second mobile of Respondent No.7 as well as from the mobile of the
InvestigatingOfficer. The order further recorded:
                                                                             H
8             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                         [2019] 15 S.C.R.


A         “According to the learned counsel, the data could be retrieved
          from the official mobile phone of the accused. However, as regards
          the personal mobile phone of the accused and the mobile of the
          investigator, no data could be retrieved as both the mobile phones
          were damaged. Therefore, the matter was referred to CBI CFSL.
B         At this stage, Ms. Sonia Mathur, learned Senior Advocate
          appearing for respondent no.7 submitted that the relevant details
          including iCloud ID and Password of the mobile belonging to him
          were extended to the CBI CFSL by respondent no.7.
          Consequently, relevant iCloud data has now been retrieved by
C         CBI CFSL from both the mobile phones of respondent no.7 i.e.
          official mobile phone as well as personal mobile phone. However,
          no data could be retrieved from the mobile phone belonging to the
          Investigating Officer as said mobile phone did not have the back-
          up in the form of any iCloud as it was not an iPhone.
D         We therefore call upon the concerned Investigating Officer to file
          an appropriate affidavit stating all these details without disclosing
          what exactly was the material which was retrieved as a result of
          the entire exercise.
          Mr. Manoj V. George, learned counsel appearing for the writ
E         petitioner then submitted that on 17.10.2019, the petitioner was
          hit by a vehicle resulting in some injuries for which she was treated
          at AIIMS Trauma Centre, New Delhi, whereafter an appropriate
          complaint was also lodged with Police Station Kotla Mubarakpur.
          FIR No.314 dated 18.10.2019 PS Kotla Mubarakpur, District
          South, New Delhi and medical papers have been placed on record
F         along with Cr. M.P. No.162386 of 2019.
          Ms. Suhasini Sen, learned counsel submitted that considering the
          nature of allegations and the injuries suffered by the petitioner,
          the respondents, on their own, have extended police protection to
          the petitioner in the form of a Security Officer. She also submitted
G         that FIR No.314 is being investigated and appropriate response
          shall be filed before the next date of hearing.”
           (e) Thereafter, a Status Report was filed on 26.11.2019 by
    Investigating Officer, Crime Branch, New Delhi, regarding status of
    investigation into the crime registered pursuant to the FIR dated 26.05.2018
H
ABCD v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. [UDAY UMESH LALIT, J.]                            9


and it was stated that after retrieving the data from the mobile phones of      A
Respondent No. 7, supplementary charge-sheet was prepared which
would be filed after getting the approval. Another Status Report was
filed on the same date by Assistant Commissioner of Police, Sub-Division,
Defence Colony, New Delhi that CCTV footages of the concerned place
where the petitioner was allegedly struck by a car showed that no such
                                                                                B
incident had actually occurred. It was asserted:
      “13. That the CCTV footages so obtained were analysed. In the
      available CCTV Footage of about 8.52 p.m. dated 17.10.19, a
      Thela driven by a child is seen scraped the left leg of the Petitioner/
      complainant while she was attempting to hire a TSR/Auto at place
      of occurrence. Complainant is seen looking towards the Thela              C
      and then moving away. She made no attempt to stop him. The
      CCTV footage has not revealed that the complainant was hit by a
      car which she had tried to stop. On the contrary, she walked
      away from the place of occurrence. (Still photographs of the CCTV
      footage are enclosed).                                                    D
      14. Local investigation was done and no witness could be found,
      who could corroborate the version of the complainant regarding
      four-wheeler (offending vehicle) as alleged by the complainant/
      petitioner.
      15. That the investigation conducted in this case so far reveals          E
      that as per the timeframe and place of incident provided by the
      complainant/petitioner, she was scraped by a “Thela”.
      16. As per the available CCTV footage complainant was hit by a
      Thela near Gurudwara Chowk, Kotla Mubarak Pur, New Delhi
      at about 8.52 p.m. dated 17.10.2019. She made PCR calls from              F
      her place of stay i.e. Indira Niketan Working Girls Hostel, Sarojini
      Nagar, New Delhi at 9.00 p.m. and 9.07 p.m. She was taken to
      Jai Prakash Narayan Apex Trauma Centre, AIIMS, New Delhi
      where she was examined at about 9.56 p.m. She was found
      entering the Jai Prakash Narayan Apex Trauma Centre, AIIMS,               G
      New Delhi with PCR staff at about 9.24 p.m. The call was initially
      sent to Police Station Sarojini Nagar and thereafter to Police
      Station Defence Colony and finally to Police Station Kotla
      Mubarak Pur, New Delhi. The details of investigation are
      mentioned in Para 12 to 15.”
                                                                                H
10               SUPREME COURT REPORTS                      [2019] 15 S.C.R.


A           (f) Consequently, on the next date i.e. on 27.11.2019 liberty was
     given to the petitioner and her counsel to watch the CCTV footages and
     the matter was adjourned.
           (g) After having availed the facility of watching the CCTV footages,
     a response was filed by the petitioner on 03.12.2019 to the status report
B    as under: -
           “8. The petitioner submits that the autorickshaw which encircled
           at 12th minute 36 seconds (12:36) the tricycle which is stated to
           be driven by a child to knock her down and a car which appears
           within a few seconds with closed doors raised serious suspicions
C          in the mind of the petitioner who construes this as a chain of
           events orchestrated by some vested interest. The petitioner who
           was suffering and was bleeding also realized that any telephone
           call to Police saying that a tricycle hit her without mentioning
           about the car which is found suspicious would not put them into
           action and her claim would be rubbished as a hit by a cycle driven
D          by a child.
           9. The petitioner required immediate medical attention and it was
           only with this intention that she had stated that a car had come
           from the backside to hit her even though now it is clear that it was
           a Thela (tricycle fitted with carriage) which had hit her from the
E          back as the car reaches only after 28 second of the hit by the
           tricycle (Thela).
              The chain of events in the staged road accident when an auto
           rickshaw encircles and dodges her in a jerk and a child rides into
           the junction only to hit her from the back and a Car/Van appearing
F          in the scene as if in a lookout for the fallen pedestrian invariably
           reinforces the apprehension in the mind of the petitioner, regarding
           a foul play.”
            (h) A response was also filed by the petitioner to the other status
     report. Submitting inter alia continuation of Respondent No. 7 in service
G    would affect fair trial.
           8. In the aforesaid background and circumstances on record, it
     was submitted by the learned Additional Solicitor General:-
           (i)     The investigation into the crime, lodged pursuant to FIR by
                   the petitioner, was conducted fairly under the supervision
H
ABCD v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. [UDAY UMESH LALIT, J.]                          11


              of a Special Investigation Team headed by ACP Shweta            A
              Singh Chauhan. After due investigation, charge-sheet has
              also been filed; prompt steps were taken by the investigating
              agency and as such nothing further need be done in the
              present writ petition.
      (ii)    The allegations made by the petitioner that a car had struck    B
              her and the suggestion that Respondent No.7 was
              instrumental for such incident were completely
              unsustainable. It was not a car but a thela mounted on a
              tricycle which had simply brushed against the petitioner.
              However, the petitioner deliberately flared it up to show as
              if it was Respondent No.7 who was behind the incident.          C

      (iii)   On her own showing, she was aware that she was not hit
              by a car but by a thelabut she did not state the facts
              truthfully and correctly as she anticipated that the claim
              could be rubbished as a minor incident. Moreover, the
              petitioner used such minor and innocuous incident to make       D
              insinuations against Respondent No.7.
       9. On the other hand, Mr. Manoj George, learned Advocate for
the petitioner submitted that:-
      (i) Respondent No.7 belonged to police service and as such there        E
      was definite apprehension that the investigation into the crime
      pursuant to FIR lodged by the petitioner, would not be conducted
      in fair and transparent manner;
      (ii) The crime registered pursuant to the FIR lodged by the mother
      of Respondent No.7 was an indication of undue influence exerted         F
      by Respondent No.7, a police officer;
      (iii) Certain audio recording and video recording with the petitioner
      were not taken note of while conducting investigation;
      (iv) Complete data from two mobile phones of Respondent No.7
      was not recovered while the mobile phone of the Investigator            G
      was completely damaged with the result there could be no retrieval
      of any data from the mobile phone of the Investigator; and
      (v) Soon after the petitioner was hit by a thela she had seen a
      car in the vicinity and therefore apprehended that it was an attempt
      on part of someone.                                                     H
12             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2019] 15 S.C.R.


A           10. The investigation into the crime registered pursuant to FIR
     No.58 of 2018 lodged by the petitioner was conducted by a Special
     Investigation Team headed by ACP Ms. Shweta Tiwari Singh and a
     charge-sheet has been filed. The apprehension that was expressed at
     some stage that the mobile phones belonging to Respondent No.7 were
B    not being taken in custody, was dealt with by this Court and it was ensured
     that said mobiles would be in the custody of the investigating agency.
     The data from those mobiles was also sought to be recovered and it
     must be stated that Respondent No.7 did extend cooperation in ensuring
     that the data could be retrieved. However, the assertion on behalf of the
     petitioner is that complete data has not been retrieved. Both the mobile
C    phones were also sent for forensic analysis. It is suggested by the
     petitioner that certain pictures may have been taken by Respondent No.7,
     which data is not presently available. However, what has been extracted
     from iCloud is fully available with the investigating agency. The data, in
     any case, would at best point that at various stages there were exchanges
D    and conversation between the petitioner and Respondent No.7 but what
     needs to be gone into at the appropriate stage is the basic submission
     that Respondent No.7 had taken undue advantage of the petitioner on
     the fateful night. The contention that the mobile phone of the Investigating
     Officer was damaged may not be material as details of any conversation
     between the petitioner and the Investigating Officer, may also be proved
E
     through the mobile phone of the petitioner herself. There is thus, nothing
     substantial which could either show that the investigation was not well
     directed or had failed to look into a particular direction. In our considered
     view, nothing further is required to be done. At this stage, it may be
     stated that if any video or audio recordings are still being retained by the
F    petitioner, they may be handed over to the Special Investigation Team
     within two days from today. It is left to the Special Investigation Team to
     consider whether that parts needs to be dealt with in the supplementary
     charge-sheet which, as indicated above, is contemplated to be filed.
              11. As regards the crime registered pursuant to FIR lodged by the
G    mother of Respondent No.7, protection has been afforded to the petitioner
     and her family members and the application under Section 438 of the
     Code3has also been dealt with. An application filed by the petitioner
     under Section 482 of the Code3 is presently pending with the High Court.
     It is, thus, clear that the petitioner has been invoking the processes of the
H    court and adequate protection is being afforded to the petitioner and her
    ABCD v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. [UDAY UMESH LALIT, J.]                          13


family members. We, therefore, do not see any reason why the matter               A
presently pending pursuant to the FIR lodged by the mother of Respondent
No.7 be transferred and investigation be entrusted to any other agency.
       12. In the aforesaid circumstances we do not see any reason why
investigation into both the aforesaid FIRs, at this stage, be entrusted to
any Central Investigating Agency. All that we can say at this juncture is         B
that the charge-sheet filed in the crime registered pursuant to FIR lodged
by the petitioner shall be considered by the concerned court on its own
merits and in accordance with law.
       13. In the end, we must observe that the matter was considered
by this Court only from the standpoint of ensuring that there was fair            C
investigation into the crime registered pursuant to FIR filed by the petitioner
and any observation made by us or directions issued by us shall not be
considered as reflection on merits of the matter or on the quality of
investigation. The matter shall be considered on its own merits and in
accordance with law.                                                              D
       14. We may now refer to the development which occurred during
the pendency of the writ petition. In FIR No. 314, as well as in the
application preferred thereafter, insinuation was definitely made that
Respondent No.7 was responsible for the incident that occurred on
17.10.2019. It was also submitted that the petitioner was hit by a car and        E
suspicion was expressed in clear terms that Respondent No.7 was behind
the episode. As it now turns out, she was not hit by a car but by a thela
which prima facie means that the allegations in her sworn statement
before this Court were not truthful.
        15. Making a false statement on oath is an offence punishable             F
under Section 181 of the IPC2while furnishing false information with
intent to cause public servant to use his lawful power to the injury of
another person is punishable under Section 182 of the IPC2. These
offences by virtue of Section 195(1)(a)(i) of the Code3 can be taken
cognizance of by any court only upon a proper complaint in writing as             G
stated in said Section. In respect of matters coming under Section
195(1)(b)(i) of the Code3, in Pushpadevi M. Jatia vs. M.L. Wadhawan
etc. 4 prosecution was directed to be launched after prima facie
satisfaction was recorded by this Court.
4   (1987) 3 SCC 367                                                              H
14             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2019] 15 S.C.R.


A           16. It has also been laid down by this Court in Chandra Shashi v.
     Anil Kumar Verma5 that a person who makes an attempt to deceive
     the court, interferes with the administration of justice and can be held
     guilty of contempt of court. In that case a husband who had filed a
     fabricated document to oppose the prayer of his wife seeking transfer
B    of matrimonial proceedings was found guilty of contempt of court and
     sentenced to two weeks imprisonment. It was observed as under:
            “1.The stream of administration of justice has to remain unpolluted
            so that purity of court’s atmosphere may give vitality to all the
            organs of the State. Polluters of judicial firmament are, therefore,
C           required to be well taken care of to maintain the sublimity of court’s
            environment; so also to enable it to administer justice fairly and to
            the satisfaction of all concerned.
            2. Anyone who takes recourse to fraud, deflects the course of
            judicial proceedings; or if anything is done with oblique motive,
D           the same interferes with the administration of justice. Such persons
            are required to be properly dealt with, not only to punish them for
            the wrong done, but also to deter others from indulging in similar
            acts which shake the faith of people in the system of administration
            of justice.
E
            14. The legal position thus is that if the publication be with intent
            to deceive the court or one made with an intention to defraud, the
            same would be contempt, as it would interfere with administration
            of justice. It would, in any case, tend to interfere with the same.
            This would definitely be so if a fabricated document is filed with
F           the aforesaid mens rea. In the case at hand the fabricated document
            was apparently to deceive the court; the intention to defraud is
            writ large. Anil Kumar is, therefore, guilty of contempt.”
          In K.D. Sharma v. Steel Authority of India Limited and others6it
     was observed:
G
            “39. If the primary object as highlighted in Kensington Income
            Tax Commrs.7 is kept in mind, an applicant who does not come
     5 (1995) 1 SCC 421
     6 (2008) 12 SCC 481
     7 (1917) 1 KB 486 : 86 LJKB 257 : 116 LT 136 (CA)
H
    ABCD v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. [UDAY UMESH LALIT, J.]                            15


         with candid facts and “clean breast” cannot hold a writ of the             A
         court with “soiled hands”. Suppression or concealment of material
         facts is not an advocacy. It is a jugglery, manipulation, manoeuvring
         or misrepresentation, which has no place in equitable and
         prerogative jurisdiction. If the applicant does not disclose all the
         material facts fairly and truly but states them in a distorted manner      B
         and misleads the court, the court has inherent power in order to
         protect itself and to prevent an abuse of its process to discharge
         the rule nisi and refuse to proceed further with the examination of
         the case on merits. If the court does not reject the petition on that
         ground, the court would be failing in its duty. In fact, such an
         applicant requires to be dealt with for contempt of court for abusing      C
         the process of the court.”
       In Dhananjay Sharma v. State of Haryana and others8 filing
of a false affidavit was the basis for initiation of action in contempt
jurisdiction and the concerned persons were punished.
                                                                                    D
        17. In the circumstances a notice is required to be issued to the
petitioner in suomotu exercise of power of this Court “why action in
contempt be not initiated against her and why appropriate direction be
not passed under Section 195(1)(a)(i) of the Code”3. The Registry is
directed to register the matter as suomotu proceedings and send a copy
of this Order to the Petitioner, who is directed to appear in-person before         E
this Court on 14.01.2020.
      18. With the aforesaid observations this writ petition stands
disposed of.

                                                                                    F
Devika Gujral                                          Writ petition disposed of.




                                                                                    G




8   (1995) 3 SCC 757
                                                                                    H