Delhi Court Orders Action Against Police Officer for Filing False Report:
Justice.
New Delhi | October 31, 2025. A Delhi court has ordered departmental action against a police officer after finding that he filed a false report to mislead the court and conducted a shoddy investigation in a criminal case arising from a neighborhood gunfight. The court also directed action against the supervising Assistant Commissioner of Police (ACP) and Station House Officer (SHO) for failing to exercise oversight.
The order was passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (ACJM) Tushar Gupta, posted at Karkardooma Courts, in the case of State vs. Mustakeem. The court said the matter revealed “serious lapses” in investigation and supervision.
“This court deems fit to issue notice to the Joint Commissioner of Police to take appropriate action against the IO for filing a false report in the present case… and not investigating the case properly,” the magistrate said in his order.
The Joint Commissioner of Police has been directed to submit a compliance report by November 3, detailing the steps taken against the Investigating Officer (IO).
False Report and Investigation Lapses
The case stemmed from a violent altercation between two groups in East Delhi, which escalated into a gunfight. One of the accused, Mustakeem, sought bail, claiming he had been falsely implicated after he approached the police to file a complaint about an assault on his family by six or seven men.
The police had registered two FIRs — one based on a complaint from Mustakeem’s father, and a cross-FIR on a complaint by another man who accused Mustakeem of firing a shot outside his house.
The IO, however, claimed that Mustakeem was arrested on the basis of a secret informer’s tip-off. This claim quickly unraveled in court.
When ACJM Gupta questioned the officer during the bail hearing, he admitted that CCTV footage showed Mustakeem himself walking into the police station to lodge a complaint. The footage directly contradicted the IO’s version.
“Thus, it can very well be said that the IO has filed a false report in this matter to mislead the court,” the magistrate observed.
Failure to Invoke Proper Legal Provisions
The court also found that the IO failed to add appropriate sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) to the FIR filed by Mustakeem’s father, despite clear evidence that he had been injured.
“From the perusal of the record, it can be seen that the father of the accused was badly injured by the complainant and the other assailants; despite this, appropriate sections have not been added,” the order stated.
Further, the facts narrated in the original complaint and those recorded in the FIR did not match, suggesting manipulation or carelessness in the police’s handling of the case.
The court noted a double standard in the police’s actions — while Mustakeem was arrested promptly, no arrests were made in the case filed by his father against the alleged attackers.
“The investigation in these matters was not conducted properly,” the court concluded, calling the probe “biased and incomplete.”
Bail Rejected Despite Police Lapses
Although the court sharply criticized the investigation, it ultimately rejected Mustakeem’s bail plea due to the serious nature of the allegations. The magistrate noted that CCTV footage showed Mustakeem running with a desi katta (country-made firearm) near the complainant’s house.
“These factors would have ordinarily led the court to grant bail, but given the seriousness of the allegations and the CCTV evidence, bail is rejected,” the order read.
Accountability Extended to Senior Officers
In a significant move, the court extended responsibility beyond the Investigating Officer, ordering departmental action against the ACP and SHO of the concerned police station for supervisory lapses.
Legal experts say this part of the order underscores the court’s growing intolerance for institutional negligence within law enforcement.
The court’s direction to the Joint Commissioner of Police signals an intent to ensure that the lapses are addressed at a systemic level, not just blamed on a single officer.
Representation
Additional Public Prosecutor Kamal Kapoor appeared for the State, while Advocate Javed Ali represented the accused.
The matter will be heard next on November 3, when the Delhi Police must submit its compliance report on the disciplinary action taken against the officers concerned.
