Delhi High Court upholds order directing Delhi Police to pay ₹50,000 compensation to a doctor for failing to register an FIR over an incident at the doctor’s clinic

The brief facts of the case are that upon receiving a call from the doctor/respondent no. 2’s clinic that certain miscreants had entered the area, the police reached the clinic. Upon reaching the clinic, the investigating officer (IO) met with the doctor/respondent no. 2 and inquired about the incident.

On the next day, respondent no. 2 submitted a complaint to the NHRC alleging that certain miscreants had illegally trespassed into his clinic and outraged the modesty of his female staff. He further submitted that despite making a call, the investigating officer failed to take action. However, the Delhi Police Commissioner/petitioner submitted that respondent no. 2 refused to provide any written complaint as a result of which the IO could not file an FIR .The NHRC directed the Commissioner of Police to pay Rs. 50,000 compensation to respondent no. 2 for non-registration of FIR. In its order, the NHRC noted that violence against the medical personnel is a serious matter and is a cognizable offence under the Delhi Medicare Service Personnel and Medicare Service Institutions (Prevention of Violence and Damage to Property) Act, 2008. NHRC observed that the Commissioner’s version that the petitioner did not want to file a complaint was cursory and failed to inspire confidence.  Single judge Justice Sachin Datta too was of the view that the Commissioner’s reliance on the alleged statement of the complainant/respondent no.2 to the effect that the complainant was not desirous of pursuing the matter was misplaced. The Commissioner relied on an inquiry allegedly prepared in the aftermath of the visit at the address of the complainant. He stated that the inquiry report was placed before the NHRC, however, the same was disregarded by the NHRC while passing the impugned order .

owever, the Court stated that such averment was misleading as NHRC’s order was passed after the alleged inquiry was conducted. It noted that the NHRC’s order provides detailed reasons as to why the petitioner’s contention that complainant was not desirous of pursuing the matter did not inspire confidence.

“Instead of complying with the directions of the NHRC, the petitioner resorted to taking refuge behind an inquiry conducted after the impugned order was passed by the NHRC which again seeks to attribute the inaction of the petitioner/police authorities to the reluctance of the complainant to pursue any complaint pursuant to the incident on 24.11.2021. As noticed above, the same is wholly misconceived.”

It remarked that the action of the officer to record the complainant’s statement regarding his complaint before the NHRC was an attempt to circumvent the consequences of the complaint.

“It is quite incongruous that the statement of the complainant (Annexure P-3), would be recorded by the very same officer against whom the complainant has lodged the complaint. There was no occasion for the very same officer to approach the complainant and question the complainant as to whether the latter was desirous of pursuing his complaint before the NHRC. The action of the concerned delinquent officer, to record the statement of the complainant/respondent no.2 with regard to the latter’s complaint in the NHRC, is nothing short of an attempt to obtain a self serving exculpatory statement to circumvent / avoid the consequences of the complaint submitted to the NHRC.”