A Delhi court criticized an investigating officer (IO) for a six-year delay in filing a chargesheet in a POCSO case. Additional sessions judge Anu Aggarwal questioned the reasons presented for the delay, citing lack of documentation and suggesting the IO favored the accused. The FIR was filed in April 2017, but the chargesheet wasn’t submitted until December 2024. The judge expressed concern for the child’s fading memory of the incident and emphasized the absence of mechanisms to prevent such delays. The Delhi Police commissioner was ordered to investigate and report by February 27, 2024, on measures to ensure timely chargesheet filings.
New Delhi:
A Delhi court has criticized an investigating officer (IO) for submitting a chargesheet after a six-year delay in a POCSO case.
Additional sessions judge Anu Aggarwal was reviewing the plea to condone the delay in the chargesheet submission by the officer.
The court directed the Delhi Police commissioner to investigate the officials accountable for the delay and inform the court if there exists a mechanism to prevent such occurrences.
In its order dated January 25, the court noted that the FIR in the case was filed in April 2017 under IPC Sections 377 (unnatural offences), 506 (criminal intimidation), and Section 6 (aggravated penetrative sexual assault) of the POCSO Act.
However, the chargesheet was presented only on December 24, 2024, the court observed.
The reasons cited for the delay included the IO’s transfer, a heavy workload, personal issues, and the disappearance of the case file.
Stating that these were not “plausible reasons,” the court remarked that no document was provided with the application to indicate that the IO had submitted the final report to the police station’s record room after the transfer.
“It is evident that the chargesheet remained with the IO. The reasons stated in the application are mere superficial explanations. The IO retained the chargesheet for six years in such a serious offense without filing it,” the court declared.
The court emphasized the breach of the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure regarding the filing of the chargesheet.
“The child was about seven years old at the time of the offense and is now likely around 13-14 years old. I question how much he remembers of the incident after six years, as memory naturally fades with age, and for very young children, it fades even faster,” the judge commented.
ASJ Aggarwal further stated that the “IO had favored the accused” and postponed the victim’s right to a swift trial.
“It is apparent that there is a lack of checks and balances at the police station to ensure that chargesheets sent to the court are filed promptly, and it has been observed that in many cases, the IO retains files for several years without anyone’s notice. This often occurs in situations where the accused has not been arrested or is out on bail,” the court added.
The police commissioner was instructed to conduct an inquiry into the situation and submit a report by February 27.
“The Commissioner of Delhi Police is also directed to report if there is any mechanism to ensure that the chargesheet does not remain with the IO and is filed in court immediately once the road certificate is issued (authorization for submitting the final report to the court), and if such a mechanism does not exist, to develop one to prevent unnecessary delays in chargesheet submission,” the court observed.
In the meantime, the court summoned the accused, indicating it was acknowledging the offense against them based on the evidence presented.
(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by NDTV staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)