A division bench of Justices V Kameswar Rao and Anoop Kumar Mendiratta of Delhi High Court made the observation while dealing with a case wherein the appointment of a man as sub-inspector was put on hold as his name was included in a FIR under 498A, filed by his sister-in-law.

The bench noted that many such complaints are eventually settled by parties out of court.

The Court, therefore, granted relief to a man whose appointment as sub-inspector with Delhi Police was kept on hold as he was named in a FIR filed for offence under Section 498A.

“There is a growing tendency amongst the women to rope in all the relatives including minors in case an FIR is lodged with reference to matrimonial disputes. Many of such complaints are eventually either settled between the families/spouses and are later on stated to have been filed in the heat of the moment over trivial issues. The abuse of the aforesaid provision has been substantially noticed though the salutary purpose of the enactment cannot be ignored in any manner,” the Court said.

The petitioner had applied for the post of sub-inspector in response to the recruitment notice dated April 22, 2017 issued by the Staff Selection Commission. He successfully cleared all the examinations which were held between May 2017 and September 2018.

The Court noted that even though the petitioner had cleared all the requisite exams for the post, the Commissioner of Police, Delhi decided to keep his appointment in abeyance since he was named in the FIR filed by his sister-in-law against his brother and the entire family.

The Court noted that in the charge-sheet, the police had mentioned his name in column 12 and there was no evidence of his involvement in any of the offences alleged by his sister-in-law.

“Considering that the petitioner had been placed in Column 12 of charge-sheet and the fact that evidence did not establish his involvement in the offences after investigation, he should have been logically considered suitable for appointment. Merely being named in the FIR cannot be treated as an impediment for public appointment, unless the involvement is substantiated on investigation, specially in relation to matrimonial offences,” the bench observed.

The court also said that,
“Merely naming in the FIR does not lead to an inference that the employer can keep in abeyance the employment of an applicant for an indefinite period, even if the applicant has been placed in column 12 of the charge-sheet and has not been summoned,”
It further stated that the CAT and the Commissioner of Police were swayed by the fact that the petitioner was named in the FIR. “

With the above mentioned observations, the bench ordered the authorities to appoint the petitioner as sub-inspector with Delhi Police.

Case Title: Vikram Ruhal vs Delhi Police.pdf