Delhi court initiates contempt case against cop over end-of-life car ‘theft’

The complainant alleged his vehicle was illegally picked up, despite the Supreme Court providing relief against coercive action to owners of end-of-life vehicles

NEW DELHI

A case was brought against the station house officer of the Vikaspuri Police Station under Section 379, read with 215, of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS). (Shutterstock)

A city court on Monday initiated a contempt case against a Delhi Police officer for disregarding its directions to lodge an FIR against a private firm hired by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD), for illegally picking up a car owner’s 15-year-old vehicle parked in west Delhi’s Vikaspuri in 2024.

On an order from judicial magistrate first class Rishabh Kapoor, a case was brought against the station house officer of the Vikaspuri Police Station under Section 379, read with 215, of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS).

The court was dealing with a complaint filed by one Sushil Kumar Gupta in 2024, against Pineview Techology Private Limited, a firm hired on contract by the MCD. The complainant alleged his vehicle was illegally picked up, despite the Supreme Court providing relief against coercive action to owners of end-of-life vehicles.

The Delhi Police contended that the directions by the apex court were issued a year after the incident and since an e-FIR of theft had already been lodged by Gupta, there was no need for another FIR.

On September 6, a sessions court stayed the order, directing a case be lodged after the revision plea was moved by the MCD.

However, in Monday’s hearing, the magistrate noted that only its directions to register an FIR were stayed by the sessions judge and not the show cause notice issued to the SHO—which the court called wilful and deliberate on the officer’s part.

The magistrate said, “The aforesaid conduct of SHO PS Vikaspuri amounts to an offence punishable under Section 223 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, as the SHO has knowingly disobeyed the directions issued by this court by omitting to register the FIR against the accused persons within the stipulated time period of 24 hours with the intent to cause obstruction to the process of administration of justice and by his said act also cause annoyance to complainant and this court”.