"This brazen misuse of powers deserves the highest form of castigation and disciplinary action in a way to create an example to such field officers who intend to use their power to the detriment of innocent citizens, the magistrate said."
New Delhi, July 15 - A court here has pulled up an investigating officer of Delhi Police for falsely implicating a person in a case of rash and negligent driving, saying the officer deserved the highest form of castigation and disciplinary action for misusing his powers.
Metropolitan Magistrate Ashok Kumar's remarks came Monday while acquitting M.C. Rastogi, facing charges of injuring pedestrian Chandan Das by his rash driving in April 2011.
Observing various discrepancies in the probe and contradictions in the statements of prosecution witnesses and also the lack of intrinsic truth in the prosecution case, the court held that Rastogi was deliberately and falsely implicated.
The court found that the location and time of the accident, as mentioned in the testimony of the victim, the investigating officer - head constable Sangeet - and other witnesses differed.
A first information report (FIR) was lodged against Rastogi at the Kotla Mubarakpur police station in south Delhi for rashly and negligently driving his car near Vikas Sadan here.
The facts of the present case reveal how the emboldened unscrupulous field investigating officers go on a rampage and curtail the liberty of innocent citizens by gross misuse of their powers by implicating them falsely for reasons best known to them, the court said.
It said the complainant might have been in the dock and the accused a free man instead, but to much astonishment of the court, the investigating officer misused his powers so much so that the exact reverse happened.
This brazen misuse of powers deserves the highest form of castigation and disciplinary action in a way to create an example to such field officers who intend to use their power to the detriment of innocent citizens, the magistrate said.
The court also issued show cause notice to the investigating officer, asking why adverse action not be taken against him.