Delhi High Court Disposes PIL Seeking Enforcement Of S.173 CrPC For Completing Probe In Rape Cases Within 2 Months

Suhavi Arya

20 Jan 2022 6:49 AM GMT

  • Delhi High Court Disposes PIL Seeking Enforcement Of S.173 CrPC For Completing Probe In Rape Cases Within 2 Months

    The Delhi High Court recently refused to entertain a PIL against alleged non-compliance of Section 173 of Code of Criminal Procedure, to the extent it provides for expeditious completion of investigation in rape cases.Section 173 was amended in 2008 to provide that investigation for the rape of child may be completed within 3 months from the date on which the information was recorded by...

    The Delhi High Court recently refused to entertain a PIL against alleged non-compliance of Section 173 of Code of Criminal Procedure, to the extent it provides for expeditious completion of investigation in rape cases.

    Section 173 was amended in 2008 to provide that investigation for the rape of child may be completed within 3 months from the date on which the information was recorded by the Officer in-Charge of the police station.

    The provision was further amended in the year 2018, to provide for completion of police investigation in relation to rape in two months.

    The petitioner, Mohit Mittal, appearing in person, alleged that there is total non-compliance of this provision by the Delhi Police. He relied on an RTI response in this regard, stating that the Delhi Police is still following Section 468 of CrPC in cases of rape. Section 468 states that Courts can take cognizance of rape cases up to three years, giving the police indefinite amount of time investigate rape cases and thereby violating Section 173.

    The Division Bench of Chief Justice DN Patel and Justice Jyoti Singh however expressed its disinclination to entertain the PIL. It observed that the Petitioner should have approached the Court in the particular criminal case, where the provision is not complied with.

    "If an error is committed by the Police in one case, no PIL is tenable," it orally observed. 

    The Bench added that the petitioner's case must be substantiated with proof of cases and not on opinion of individual police officers.

    Nevertheless, it disposed of the PIL reserving the Petitioner's liberty to file a fresh petition with proper averments, allegations and annexures.

    Case Title: Mohit Mittal v. Delhi Police, WP (crl) 2542/2021

    Next Story