Delhi HC matrimonial disputes- court emphasises that being named in an FIR on matrimonial offences should not obstruct public appointments, clarifying stance.
The Delhi High Court recently made an important observation regarding public appointments and being named in a First Information Report (FIR). The court stated that simply being named in an FIR does not automatically prevent someone from being appointed to a public position, unless their involvement in the alleged offence is proven through investigation, especially in cases related to marital disputes.
The court emphasised that authorities and tribunals need to consider the fact that there is a growing trend among women to involve all relatives, including minors, when filing an FIR related to matrimonial issues. Many of these complaints are eventually resolved between the families or spouses and are later acknowledged as being filed in the heat of the moment over minor issues.
The court acknowledged that while the provision of allowing FIRs serves an important purpose, it has also been misused. Merely being named in an FIR does not justify the indefinite suspension of employment for an applicant, even if they have not been summoned by the investigating authorities.
About the case
The case before the High Court involved a plea challenging an order by the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT). The CAT had set aside an order by the deputy commissioner of police, Recruitment NPL, Delhi, which had put the recruitment of a man as a sub-inspector (Exe) in the Delhi Police on hold until the outcome of the FIR proceedings. The CAT did not cancel the man’s candidature, but stated that it should not be cancelled until the case in the FIR was resolved.
The FIR had been filed by the man’s sister-in-law, implicating all members of the family. The charges mentioned in the FIR included sections related to cruelty and criminal intimidation. The court was informed that a chargesheet had been filed, but the man was placed in ‘Column 12,’ which indicates that no evidence had been found against him, although his involvement could not be ruled out.
The court observed that since there was no evidence establishing the man’s involvement in the offences mentioned in the FIR after investigation, he should have been considered suitable for the appointment. The court ruled that merely being named in the FIR should not be seen as an obstacle to public appointment, unless involvement is substantiated through investigation, particularly in cases related to matrimonial offences.
The court also noted that the man was in a better position compared to cases where individuals are summoned as accused and their proceedings are evaluated based on acquittal or benefit of doubt. The court criticised the tribunal for assuming that the petitioner could be summoned based on being placed in Column 12 of the chargesheet or during the trial.
The Court also found no evidence to suggest that the man’s background disqualified him from the position of sub-inspector in the Delhi Police. The court emphasised that it would be unfair to consider him a threat to the discipline of the police force solely based on an FIR in which he had not even been summoned.
In light of these observations, the High Court overturned the previous orders by the authorities and the CAT. The Court directed the authorities to appoint the man to the relevant position, provided he fulfils all other conditions, within four weeks of the court’s ruling.
Like this post?
Register at One World News to never miss out on videos, celeb interviews, and best reads.