The Delhi High Court disposed of a transfer petition filed by a Delhi Police officer seeking transfer of two criminal proceedings from Rohini Courts to a court outside the complex, after an advocate arrayed as a respondent agreed to undertake that she would not contact or interact with him in connection with the cases.
Justice Prateek Jalan was dealing with a petition under Section 447 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, concerning proceedings arising out of two FIRs one in which the petitioner is the Investigating Officer and another in which he is the complainant.
According to the transfer plea, the controversy arose from an alleged altercation on April 6, 2026, when the police officer had appeared before Rohini Courts pursuant to judicial directions in a pending criminal case. The petition alleged that the respondent advocate, who represents the accused in that case, verbally abused and intimidated the officer within court premises and later physically assaulted him outside the courtroom, leading to registration of a separate FIR on his complaint.
The petition further claimed that the incident was part of a larger pattern of intimidation during the course of the investigation, including earlier alleged threats during court proceedings and investigation-related processes, which the officer said hindered his ability to discharge his official duties independently.
A significant ground in the plea was the respondent advocate’s dual position as counsel for the accused in one matter and an accused in the cross-case lodged by the officer which, according to the petitioner, made his continued participation in proceedings at Rohini Courts untenable.
Before the Court, Advocate Prateek Som, counsel for the petitioner argued that the prevailing circumstances created a coercive environment. Counsel for the respondent disputed the allegations but stated that the respondent was willing to file an undertaking that she would not contact or interact with the petitioner either in his official capacity in one case or as complainant in the other.
Recording the statement, the High Court permitted filing of the undertaking and requested the Additional Commissioner of Police, Prashant Vihar, to take necessary steps to ensure the officer’s security and protection whenever he attends proceedings connected with the two FIRs.
The Court clarified that it had not expressed any opinion on the truthfulness of the allegations and disposed of the transfer petition accordingly.
Appearances:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Prateek Som, Mr. Aditya Shukla, Mr. Chaitanya Tripathi & Mr. Jalaj Sharma, Advocates.
For Respondents: Mr. Yudhvir Singh Chauhan, APP for State.
Insp. Vinay Kumar, Crime Branch.
Mr. Aditya Kaushik, Advocate for R-7.
