HC dismisses IAS hopeful's plea seeking quashing of FIR

The Bombay High Court today dismissed a petition filed by an IAS aspirant seeking quashing of an FIR registered against him for allegedly getting into scuffle with police and observed that police should not be made a "soft target".
The petitioner was booked by police under various charges including obstructing a public servant from performing his duty.
His plea contended that he and his woman friend, a CA by profession, had attended a party in a club in South Mumbai on December 31 last year. After the party got over, the duo booked a private cab and were waiting outside the club when a policeman came and asked them to vacate the place.

The petitioner, whose name is withheld, said the police personnel passed remarks about the dress worn by the petitioner's friend, following which a verbal duel ensued which resulted in a minor scuffle.
The petitioner was then taken to the police station and an FIR was lodged against him.
The petitioner requested dismissal of FIR saying he does not want a case against him as he has to appear for civil services exams.

However, a division bench of Justices R V More and V L Achiliya, dismissed the petition on the ground that it does not merit the court's intervention.
On the issue of providing compensation to victims of

heinous offences, the bench said the scheme for the same be notified at the earliest and not later than two weeks.
The court also said that payment of compensation has to be prioritised after DSLSA told the bench that following the demonestisation notification there was some delay in payments as banks were busy with other functions.
DSLSA assured the court that payment of compensation to victims has been prioritised now.
The court also allowed DCW to be impleaded as a party in the matter after the commission moved an application for intervention in which it has made suggestions, like illuminating dark areas and setting up CCTVs in buses and bus stops to prevent crimes against women and children in the city.

Delhi Commission for Women (DCW) has also claimed, in its application, that Delhi has no rehabilitation policy for rape victims and that the situation in Nari Niketans was deplorable.
The court asked the Delhi government and the Centre to file their response to the submissions made in DCW's application.
During the arguments, the Delhi government, police and even DCW told the court that there was congestion in the network when the number 100 is called and that more lines and operators are also required apart from upgrading of the existing system.
The Centre, on the other hand, told the bench that there was no need to increase the bandwidth and that Delhi Police needs to take lines from other service providers also, not just MTNL, if faster connectivity to 100 number was required.

The court was also told that often distress callers hear only an automated message when all the lines are busy.
To this, the court remarked that having a response time of less than 10 minutes would be of no consequence if the distress call itself goes unattended for several minutes.
It also questioned the logic behind the Centre's proposal to introduce a single emergency number 112. It did not pass any orders as the government was only experimenting with this idea at the moment.
Regarding response time of PCR vans to a distress call, the court observed that on paper Delhi Police appeared to much more efficient and faster than the Metropolitan Police in London.

As replies were awaited from other cities of the world regarding response time of their police forces, the court asked the Centre to expedite it through its External Affairs Ministry.
The orders came on a PIL initiated by the court after the December 16, 2012 gangrape case, in which it has been giving directions from time to time with regard to improving crime investigation and protection of women in the national capital.