-
by Admin
19 February 2026 9:36 AM
“Complaint alleging false implication is premature… let the trial conclude first”, In a strongly worded judgment Delhi High dismissed a plea seeking the registration of an FIR against police officials for allegedly fabricating a case under the Delhi Excise Act. Justice Neena Bansal Krishna ruled that “the complaint alleging false implication is premature” and observed that such claims cannot be entertained when the main criminal trial is still pending. The Court emphasized that the proper forum for contesting such allegations is the trial itself, not parallel proceedings invoking criminal jurisdiction against police officials.
Raj Kumar Sharma, a resident of Delhi, had been booked on April 13, 2020, under Sections 33, 38, and 58 of the Delhi Excise Act (FIR No. 56/2020, PS Gulabi Bagh) after being allegedly caught transporting 960 quarters of illicit liquor in a silver Ertiga car. Sharma claimed innocence and filed a complaint under Section 200 CrPC and an application under Section 156(3) CrPC, seeking action against police officers for falsely implicating him.
According to Sharma, CCTV footage from his home at 12:50 PM showed him walking with police officials in plain clothes, disproving the later arrest narrative at 4:30 PM. He contended that this proved a false implication and illegal detention. However, the Magistrate dismissed his complaint, noting that the allegations lacked substance and were barred under Section 140 of the Delhi Police Act. Aggrieved, Sharma approached the High Court under Section 378(4) read with Section 482 CrPC.
The central legal question before the Court was whether the Metropolitan Magistrate had erred in refusing to order an investigation under Section 156(3) CrPC and dismissing the complaint alleging police misconduct.
Justice Bansal Krishna found the allegations entirely speculative at this stage. The Court held:
“There is no prima facie evidence to show that the Complainant was taken to the Police Station at about 04:30 PM and thereafter, illegally detained.”
The judgment elaborated that CCTV footage, on which the entire narrative rested, was not conclusive of police wrongdoing. Instead, the Court noted:
“The enquiry took place in the street near the Complainant’s house and lasted only about 45 minutes… the Respondents departed without the Complainant.”
The High Court further emphasized the lack of direct linkage between the afternoon visit by police officers and the subsequent arrest for liquor possession later that day:
“The Complainant was apprehended driving an Ertiga car in which illicit liquor was recovered… the complaint of false implication is not substantiated by any reliable material.”
The Court also addressed the legal bar under Section 140 of the Delhi Police Act, noting that criminal proceedings against officers performing their duties require procedural compliance, which was absent.
On the legal maintainability of the petition itself, the Court clarified:
“Order under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. is revisable, not appealable as attempted here… yet, considering that the complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. was also dismissed, we have examined the order on merits.”
The Court ultimately endorsed the magistrate’s findings:
“The learned Magistrate has rightly observed that there are two FIRs which are still pending trial and the complaint alleging false implication is premature.”
The Delhi High Court refused to allow what it called an “anticipatory exoneration” tactic. It concluded that the petitioner must prove his innocence in the ongoing trial rather than initiate a collateral assault on the prosecution through a separate FIR against investigating officers.
This judgment reaffirms that “criminal trials must run their course before allegations of misuse of power by police can be legally assessed”—a principle that ensures both procedural discipline and the sanctity of judicial inquiry.
Date of Decision: May 22, 2025
