"Just Because You're Wearing A Uniform Is Not An Excuse To Get Away": Delhi High Court Tells Police Officer Who Filed Wrong Status Report

The Delhi High Court on Friday slammed an officer of the Delhi Police who signed off a wrong status report to be filed before the Court.

"You have filed a report in black and while claiming exactly opposite of what has happened. Just because you're wearing a uniform is not an excuse to get away," remarked Justice Rekha Palli.

She warned the concerned officer to remain careful in the future and ensure that he properly verifies the information before supplying it to the Court.

The development comes in a writ petition filed by one Tarun Aggarwal with a grievance that pursuant to the unilateral appointment of the Sole Arbitrator by the Kotak Mahindra Bank, he was being threatened by the receiver appointed by the bank on the pretext that in case he does not pay the amount as directed by the Arbitrator vide orders passed under Section 17 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act; the receiver will take the aid of Delhi Police for taking possession and custody of the articles concerned in the subject matter.

It was averred that when the receiver forcibly entered the petitioner's residence, he was not only accompanied by two constables of the Delhi Police but he also threatened the petitioner's family member of dire consequences.

During the course of proceedings, the Bank expressed willingness to terminate the mandate of the unilaterally appointed Sole Arbitrator and to appoint a new arbitrator in accordance with law. Accordingly, the petitioner's grievance was resolved.

However, in the light of the "serious allegations" made by the petitioner regarding involvement of Delhi Police, the Court had vide its order dated February 19, directed the Kotak Mahindra Bank as also the Delhi Police to file an affidavit/ status report pointing out as to in how many matters assistance was being rendered by Delhi Police for execution of orders passed by the Sole Arbitrator under Section 17 of the Act, without the bank approaching the Executing Court.

In its status report dated 31st March, the Delhi Police stated that no assistance is provided to accompany receivers for enforcing orders passed by arbitrators, without approaching an executing Court, except in the present case.

However, upon a perusal of the status report field by the Bank, the Court noted a list of 20 matters was furnished in which police assistance was taken by the receivers.

"While it is the stand of respondent nos.1 & 2/ Delhi Police that except in this case no assistance was ever given by the said respondent to the respondent no.5 bank for execution of any orders passed under Section 17 by the Sole Arbitrator; the stand of the respondent no.5 bank is wholly contrary," the Court observed.

It then granted time to the Delhi Police to examine the affidavit filed by the Bank, and submit as to why appropriate action should not be directed against the concerned officials of the Delhi Police.

Pursuant thereof, the Delhi Police filed a fresh status report from which it became evident that the stand taken by it in the earlier affidavit dated March 31 was "patently contrary" to the record.

Coming down heavily on the concerned officer for filing a "misleading report", Justice Palli remarked,

"Please give some honour to your uniform instead of making it a mockery."

The concerned officer submitted that the error was inadvertent as the report dated March 31 was based on the input received by him. Govt counsel SK Tripathi also informed the Court that vide memorandum dated September 22, a system has been put in place whereby SHO is directed to maintain a register for police assistance, for each of category of cases.

Thus, directing the concerned officer to "be careful" in the future, the Court disposed of the matter. The order stated,

"He (officer) submits he will ensure that in the future before filing of status report, the information provided by field officers is carefully checked. This submission is taken on record. No further orders called for."

Case Title: Tarun Krishan Aggarwal v. SHO, PS Hauz Qazi