Writ Petition (Criminal) Appeal No.191 of 2018  

ABCD  v.  Union of India  

1    

Reportable  

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA  

CRIMINAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION  

WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO.191 OF 2018   

ABCD              …Petitioner  

VERSUS  

UNION OF INDIA & ORS.          …Respondents  

O R D E R   

Uday Umesh Lalit, J.  

1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner1 above-named  

seeking following directions:  

“I. Writ of Mandamus to the extent that the  

investigation arising out of FIR No.58/2018 U/S  

376,328,506 & 509 IPC 1860, be transferred from  

Delhi Police to an independent Central Agency.  

II. Writ of Mandamus to State of West Bengal to  

suspend the accused (Respondent No.7) herein and  

initiate departmental proceedings against him and  

 1  In terms of Section 228A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, the Identity of the Petitioner  

is not being disclosed

Writ Petition (Criminal) Appeal No.191 of 2018  

ABCD  v.  Union of India  

2    

direct him not to influence the witness of this crime to  

ensure free and fair investigation.  

III. Order the transfer of the investigation arising out  

of FIR No.256/2018 dated 03.06.2018 under Section  

384, 389, 34 IPC registered at Basirhat PS, West  

Bengal to a Central Agency and till then stay the  

investigation.   

IV. Direct the Investigating Agency to immediately  

collect Call Detail Records (CDR) of the mobile  

numbers and confiscate the two mobile phones of the  

accused and to retrieve the CCTV footage of Lalit  

Hotel on 27.01.2018 to 29.01.2018 of the lobby,  

restaurant and room number 2603 where the accused  

took the petitioner to commit the offence of rape.  

V. Order protection to the petitioner and her family  

members.  

VI. Any other order or directions to secure justice to  

the petitioner which this court may deem fit and  

proper.”  

2. FIR No.58 of 2018 filed by the petitioner with Police Station  

Barakhambha Road, New Delhi alleged:  

That the petitioner and Respondent No.7 herein (an IPS Officer) became  

friends through exchanges on Facebook and started meeting each other.   

There were talks of marriage.  On 28.01.2018, Respondent No.7 had  

come to Delhi and was putting up at Hotel Lalit.  After having spent the  

entire day with Respondent No.7, the petitioner went to the room of  

Respondent No.7 where he offered some chocolates to her.  She fell quite   

Writ Petition (Criminal) Appeal No.191 of 2018  

ABCD  v.  Union of India  

3    

dizzy after she had the chocolates.  Taking advantage of her situation  

Respondent No.7 made physical advances and had sexual intercourse  

with her.  Thereafter for some time, there were discussions between the  

families to carry forward their relationship to the next level of marriage  

but Respondent No.7 abruptly told the petitioner on 10.02.2018 that there  

could be no relationship between them.  Alleging that Respondent No.7  

had taken undue advantage of her situation and had forcible intercourse  

with her on 28.01.2018 said FIR was filed on 26.05.2018.  

3. On or about 03.06.2018, FIR No.256 of 2018 was filed by the  

mother of Respondent No.7 submitting  that the petitioner and her family  

members had been pressurising the family of Respondent No.7 to pay to  

them a sum of Rs.15 lakhs failing which they were threatened with filing  

of cases with allegations of rape and other criminal cases against  

Respondent No.7.  It was alleged that succumbing to the pressure so  

exerted, a sum of Rs.5 lakhs was paid to the brother of the petitioner on  

04.02.2018 and the rest of the amount was to be paid within three months.   

FIR, thus alleged commission of offences punishable under Sections 384,  

389 read with 34 IPC2.   

 2 Indian Penal Code, 1860

Writ Petition (Criminal) Appeal No.191 of 2018  

ABCD  v.  Union of India  

4    

4. It must be stated that protection under Section 438 of the Code3 was  

granted to the present petitioner and her family members which protection  

is still continuing and a petition under Section 482 of the Code3 has also  

been filed by the petitioner seeking quashing of said FIR No.256 of 2018,  

on which notice has been issued.  

5. It was in the background of these two FIRs that this writ petition  

came to be filed submitting, inter alia that since the Respondent No.7  

belonged to police service, there was apprehension that the investigation by  

Delhi Police into the FIR lodged by the petitioner may not be proper and  

fair.  The petitioner also adverted to certain facets of the matter, namely,  

that the investigating agency had delayed the recording of the statement of  

the petitioner under Section 164 of the Code3; that no CCTV footage of  

Hotel Lalit were attempted to be obtained.  In these circumstances it was  

prayed that the investigation be transferred from Delhi Police to an  

independent police agency.  Further, the FIR lodged by the mother of  

Respondent No.7 was stated to be a deliberate attempt to rope in the  

petitioner and her family and it was prayed that the investigation into said  

FIR may also be entrusted to an independent agency.  

 3 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

Writ Petition (Criminal) Appeal No.191 of 2018  

ABCD  v.  Union of India  

5    

6. On 19.06.2018 the investigation into FIR No.58 of 2018 was  

transferred to Crime Branch of Delhi Police and thereafter sometime in  

August 2018, the present writ petition came to be filed for the reliefs stated  

hereinabove.  

7. This writ petition was heard from time to time and it may be  

relevant to note the following developments.  

(a) On 23.07.2019 the submissions of the petitioner were  

recorded that the investigating agency had not recovered CCTV  

footages from the concerned Hotel and that material available in  

electronic form with Respondent No.7 was also not retrieved by the  

investigating agency.  The Investigating Officer who was present in  

Court, submitted that no CCTV footage could be procured as the  

footages are preserved by the Hotel only for a month and the incident  

itself was reported more than three months later.  It was also stated  

that a mobile belonging to Respondent No.7 was taken into custody  

by the Investigating Officer while the other mobile belonging to him  

did not have any material and as such the same was returned to  

Respondent No.7.  In the circumstances it was directed that the  

investigators shall take into custody the other mobile of Respondent

Writ Petition (Criminal) Appeal No.191 of 2018  

ABCD  v.  Union of India  

6    

No.7 and send both the mobiles for forensic analysis.  It was also  

directed that the investigation into the matter be conducted at an early  

date;  

(b)   On 11.09.2019 it was informed that after due investigation  

charge-sheet was filed in the matter.  It was stated that second mobile  

of Respondent No.7 was also taken into custody and attempts were  

made to extract the Metadata for the opinion of the experts.  The  

submissions of the petitioner and Respondent No.7 were recorded as  

under:  

“It was submitted by Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, learned  

Senior Advocate that the investigation in connection  

with recovery of data from these two phones was not  

proper and there was no co-operation from the accused.   

It must be stated that the Charge-sheet does not suggest  

that because of any lack of cooperation on part of the  

accused in not providing or supplying the Code  

Number, the Mobile Phone could not be operated or  

opened. It must also be stated that Ms. Sonia Mathur,  

learned Senior Advocate for the accused has very fairly  

supplied the Code Number (No.220192) and stated that  

this Code Number applies to both the Mobile Phones,  

with the help of which said Mobile Phones could  

normally be opened.”  

(c) On 21st October, 2019 Crl.M.P. No.162386 of 2019 was filed  

by the petitioner seeking police protection after having highlighted an  

incident that had occurred on 18.10.2019.  In respect of said incident,

Writ Petition (Criminal) Appeal No.191 of 2018  

ABCD  v.  Union of India  

7    

the petitioner had filed FIR No.314 with Police Station Kotla Mubarak  

Pur, District South Delhi, alleging, inter alia:  

“I was going back to my home from Defence Colony in front  

of I phone store opposite  red light suddenly one car came  

from back side and hit me.  I was bruised and tried to stop  

the driver but he run away from there. I was injured so I  

made call 100 number help and hired an auto from there  

because I was feeling very unsafe there. I reached at my  

residence.  PCR came and took me to AIIMS Trauma Centre.  

I immediately made a call to SIT (reference FIR bearing  

No.0058/18 with PS Barakhamba Road New Delhi dated  

26.05.2018) but they didn’t take my calls. I made a call to  

concerned DCP and Whatsapp msg for the same.”  

 The FIR also stated that the petitioner had strong  

apprehension that Respondent No.7 had attacked her.  It was further  

stated that CCTV Footage available be seized.  

 In the application filed in this Court it was stated:  

“Needless to say that the Petitioner’s life has been shadowed  

and her life has been under threat and clandestine scanner by  

the Accused who being an IPS officer had been adopting all  

means to make the Petitioner succumb to his deeds.   

Henceforth the Petitioner submits that her life under the  

radar of the Accused IPS officer would come to an end, if  

adequate protection and measures are not granted by this  

Hon’ble Court.”

Writ Petition (Criminal) Appeal No.191 of 2018  

ABCD  v.  Union of India  

8    

(d)   On 24.10.2019, the order stated that in terms of the directions  

issued on 11.09.2019 attempts were made to retrieve data from the  

second mobile of Respondent No.7 as well as from the mobile of the  

Investigating Officer.  The order further recorded:  

“According to the learned counsel, the data could be  

retrieved from the official mobile phone of the accused.  

However, as regards the personal mobile phone of the  

accused and the mobile of the investigator, no data  

could be retrieved as both the mobile phones were  

damaged. Therefore, the matter was referred to CBI  

CFSL.   

At this stage, Ms. Sonia Mathur, learned Senior  

Advocate appearing for respondent no.7 submitted that  

the relevant details including iCloud ID and Password  

of the mobile belonging to him were extended to the  

CBI CFSL by respondent no.7.   

Consequently, relevant iCloud data has now been  

retrieved by CBI CFSL from both the mobile phones  

of respondent no.7 i.e. official mobile phone as well as  

personal mobile phone. However, no data could be  

retrieved from the mobile phone belonging to the  

Investigating Officer as said mobile phone did not have  

the back-up in the form of any iCloud as it was not an  

iPhone.   

We therefore call upon the concerned Investigating  

Officer to file an appropriate affidavit stating all these  

details without disclosing what exactly was the  

material which was retrieved as a result of the entire  

exercise.   

Mr. Manoj V. George, learned counsel appearing for  

the writ petitioner then submitted that on 17.10.2019,  

the petitioner was hit by a vehicle resulting in some

Writ Petition (Criminal) Appeal No.191 of 2018  

ABCD  v.  Union of India  

9    

injuries for which she was treated at AIIMS Trauma  

Centre, New Delhi, whereafter an appropriate  

complaint was also lodged with Police Station Kotla  

Mubarakpur. FIR No.314 dated 18.10.2019 PS Kotla  

Mubarakpur, District South, New Delhi and medical  

papers have been placed on record along with Cr. M.P.  

No.162386 of 2019.   

Ms. Suhasini Sen, learned counsel submitted that  

considering the nature of allegations and the injuries  

suffered by the petitioner, the respondents, on their  

own, have extended police protection to the petitioner  

in the form of a Security Officer. She also submitted  

that FIR No.314 is being investigated and appropriate  

response shall be filed before the next date of hearing.”  

(e)    Thereafter, a Status Report was filed on 26.11.2019 by  

Investigating Officer, Crime Branch, New Delhi, regarding status of  

investigation into the crime registered pursuant to the FIR dated  

26.05.2018 and it was stated that after retrieving the data from the  

mobile phones of Respondent No. 7, supplementary charge-sheet was  

prepared which would be filed after getting the approval.  Another  

Status Report was filed on the same date by Assistant Commissioner  

of Police, Sub-Division, Defence Colony, New Delhi that CCTV  

footages of the concerned place where the petitioner was allegedly  

struck by a car showed that no such incident had actually occurred.  It  

was asserted:  

Writ Petition (Criminal) Appeal No.191 of 2018  

ABCD  v.  Union of India  

10    

“13. That the CCTV footages so obtained were  

analysed.  In the available CCTV Footage of about 8.52  

p.m. dated 17.10.19, a Thela driven by a child is seen  

scraped the left leg of the Petitioner/complainant while  

she was attempting to hire a TSR/Auto at place of  

occurrence.  Complainant is seen looking towards the  

Thela and then moving away.  She made no attempt to  

stop him.  The CCTV footage has not revealed that the  

complainant was hit by a car which she had tried to  

stop.  On the contrary, she walked away from the place  

of occurrence. (Still photographs of the CCTV footage  

are enclosed).  

14. Local investigation was done and no witness could  

be found, who could corroborate the version of the  

complainant regarding four-wheeler (offending  

vehicle) as alleged by the complainant/petitioner.  

15. That the investigation conducted in this case so far  

reveals that as per the time frame and place of incident  

provided by the complainant/petitioner, she was  

scraped by a “Thela”.  

16. As per the available CCTV footage complainant  

was hit by a Thela near Gurudwara Chowk, Kotla  

Mubarak Pur, New Delhi at about 8.52 p.m. dated  

17.10.2019.  She made PCR calls from her place of stay  

i.e. Indira Niketan Working Girls Hostel, Sarojini  

Nagar, New Delhi at 9.00 p.m. and 9.07 p.m.  She was  

taken to Jai Prakash Narayan Apex Trauma Centre,  

AIIMS, New Delhi where she was examined at about  

9.56 p.m.  She was found entering the Jai Prakash  

Narayan Apex Trauma Centre, AIIMS, New Delhi  

with PCR staff at about 9.24 p.m.  The call was initially  

sent to Police Station Sarojini Nagar and thereafter to  

Police Station Defence Colony and finally to Police  

Station Kotla Mubarak Pur, New Delhi.  The details of  

investigation are mentioned in Para 12 to 15.”  

Writ Petition (Criminal) Appeal No.191 of 2018  

ABCD  v.  Union of India  

11    

(f)   Consequently, on the next date i.e. on 27.11.2019 liberty  

was given to the petitioner and her counsel to watch the CCTV  

footages and the matter was adjourned.    

(g)       After having availed the facility of watching the CCTV  

footages, a response was filed by the petitioner on 03.12.2019 to the  

status report as under: -   

“8. The petitioner submits that the autorickshaw  

which encircled at 12th minute 36 seconds (12:36) the  

tricycle which is stated to be driven by a child to knock  

her down and a car which appears within a few seconds  

with closed doors raised serious suspicions in the mind  

of the petitioner who construes this as a chain of events  

orchestrated by some vested interest.  The petitioner  

who was suffering and was bleeding also realized that  

any telephone call to Police saying that a tricycle hit  

her without mentioning about the car which is found  

suspicious would not put them into action and her  

claim would be rubbished as a hit by a cycle driven by  

a child.  

9. The petitioner required immediate medical  

attention and it was only with this intention that she had  

stated that a car had come from the backside to hit her  

even though now it is clear that it was a Thela (tricycle  

fitted with carriage) which had hit her from the back as  

the car reaches only after 28 second of the hit by the  

tricycle (Thela).  

The chain of events in the staged road accident  

when an auto rickshaw encircles and dodges her in a  

jerk and a child rides into the junction only to hit her  

from the back and a Car/Van appearing in the scene as  

if in a lookout for the fallen pedestrian invariably

Writ Petition (Criminal) Appeal No.191 of 2018  

ABCD  v.  Union of India  

12    

reinforces the apprehension in the mind of the  

petitioner, regarding a foul play.”  

(h) A response was also filed by the petitioner to the other status  

report. Submitting inter alia continuation of Respondent No. 7 in  

service would affect fair trial.   

8.  In the aforesaid background and circumstances on record, it was  

submitted by the learned Additional Solicitor General:-  

(i) The investigation into the crime, lodged pursuant to FIR by  

the petitioner, was conducted fairly under the supervision of  

a Special Investigation Team headed by ACP Shweta Singh  

Chauhan.  After due investigation, charge-sheet has also been  

filed; prompt steps were taken by the investigating agency  

and as such nothing further need be done in the present writ  

petition.  

(ii) The allegations made by the petitioner that a car had struck  

her and the suggestion that Respondent No.7 was  

instrumental for such incident were completely  

unsustainable.  It was not a car but a thela mounted on a  

tricycle which had simply brushed against the petitioner.  

Writ Petition (Criminal) Appeal No.191 of 2018  

ABCD  v.  Union of India  

13    

However, the petitioner deliberately flared it up to show as if  

it was Respondent No.7 who was behind the incident.  

(iii) On her own showing, she was aware that she was not hit by  

a car but by a thela but she did not state the facts truthfully  

and correctly as she anticipated that the claim could be  

rubbished as a minor incident. Moreover, the petitioner used  

such minor and innocuous incident to make insinuations  

against Respondent No.7.  

9.  On the other hand, Mr. Manoj George, learned Advocate for the  

petitioner submitted that:-  

(i)   Respondent No.7 belonged to police service and as such  

there was definite apprehension that the investigation into the crime  

pursuant to FIR lodged by the petitioner, would not be conducted in  

fair and transparent manner;     

(ii)  The crime registered pursuant to the FIR lodged by the  

mother of Respondent No.7 was an indication of undue influence  

exerted by Respondent No.7, a police officer;    

(iii) Certain audio recording and video recording with the  

petitioner were not taken note of while conducting investigation;

Writ Petition (Criminal) Appeal No.191 of 2018  

ABCD  v.  Union of India  

14    

(iv)  Complete data from two mobile phones of Respondent No.7  

was not recovered while the mobile phone of the Investigator was  

completely damaged with the result there could be no retrieval of any  

data from the mobile phone of the Investigator; and   

(v)   Soon after the petitioner was hit by a thela she had seen a car  

in the vicinity and therefore apprehended that it was an attempt on  

part of someone.    

10.   The investigation into the crime registered pursuant to FIR No.58  

of 2018 lodged by the petitioner was conducted by a Special Investigation  

Team headed by ACP Ms. Shweta Tiwari Singh and a charge-sheet has been  

filed. The apprehension that was expressed at some stage that the mobile  

phones belonging to Respondent No.7 were not being taken in custody, was  

dealt with by this Court and it was ensured that said mobiles would be in the  

custody of the investigating agency.  The data from those mobiles was also  

sought to be recovered and it must be stated that Respondent No.7 did extend  

cooperation in ensuring that the data could be retrieved. However, the  

assertion on behalf of the petitioner is that complete data has not been  

retrieved.  Both the mobile phones were also sent for forensic analysis.  It is  

suggested by the petitioner that certain pictures may have been taken by

Writ Petition (Criminal) Appeal No.191 of 2018  

ABCD  v.  Union of India  

15    

Respondent No.7, which data is not presently available.  However, what has  

been extracted from iCloud is fully available with the investigating agency.   

The data, in any case, would at best point that at various stages there were  

exchanges and conversation between the petitioner and Respondent No.7 but  

what needs to be gone into at the appropriate stage is the basic submission  

that Respondent No.7 had taken undue advantage of the petitioner on the  

fateful night.  The contention that the mobile phone of the Investigating  

Officer was damaged may not be material as details of any conversation  

between the petitioner and the Investigating Officer, may also be proved  

through the mobile phone of the petitioner herself.   There is thus, nothing  

substantial which could either show that the investigation was not well  

directed or had failed to look into a particular direction. In our considered  

view, nothing further is required to be done.  At this stage, it may be stated  

that if any video or audio recordings are still being retained by the petitioner,  

they may be handed over to the Special Investigation Team within two days  

from today. It is left to the Special Investigation Team to consider whether  

that parts needs to be dealt with in the supplementary charge-sheet which, as  

indicated above, is contemplated to be filed.   

11.           As regards the crime registered pursuant to FIR lodged by the  

mother of Respondent No.7, protection has been afforded to the petitioner

Writ Petition (Criminal) Appeal No.191 of 2018  

ABCD  v.  Union of India  

16    

and her family members and the application under Section 438 of the Code3  

has also been dealt with.  An application filed by the petitioner under Section  

482 of the Code3 is presently pending with the High Court.  It is, thus, clear  

that the petitioner has been invoking the processes of the court and adequate  

protection is being afforded to the petitioner and her family members.  We,  

therefore, do not see any reason why the matter presently pending pursuant  

to the FIR lodged by the mother of Respondent No.7 be transferred and  

investigation be entrusted to any other agency.   

12.      In the aforesaid circumstances we do not see any reason why  

investigation into both the aforesaid FIRs, at this stage, be entrusted to any  

Central Investigating Agency.  All that we can say at this juncture is that the  

charge-sheet filed in the crime registered pursuant to FIR lodged by the  

petitioner shall be considered by the concerned court on its own merits and  

in accordance with law.  

13.            In the end, we must observe that the matter was considered by this  

Court only from the standpoint of ensuring that there was fair investigation  

into the crime registered pursuant to FIR filed by the petitioner and any  

observation made by us or directions issued by us shall not be considered as

Writ Petition (Criminal) Appeal No.191 of 2018  

ABCD  v.  Union of India  

17    

reflection on merits of the matter or on the quality of investigation. The matter  

shall be considered on its own merits and in accordance with law.   

14.  We may now refer to the development which occurred during the  

pendency of the writ petition.  In FIR No. 314, as well as in the application  

preferred thereafter, insinuation was definitely made that Respondent No.7  

was responsible for the incident that occurred on 17.10.2019.  It was also  

submitted that the petitioner was hit by a car and suspicion was expressed in  

clear terms that Respondent No.7 was behind the episode.  As it now turns  

out, she was not hit by a car but by a thela which prima facie means that the  

allegations in her sworn statement before this Court were not truthful.    

15.    Making a false statement on oath is an offence punishable under  

Section 181 of the IPC2 while furnishing false information with intent to  

cause public servant to use his lawful power to the injury of another person  

is punishable under Section 182 of the IPC2.  These offences by virtue of  

Section 195(1)(a)(i) of the Code3 can be taken cognizance of by any court  

only upon a proper complaint in writing as stated in said Section.  In respect  

of matters coming under Section 195(1)(b)(i) of the Code3, in Pushpadevi M.

Writ Petition (Criminal) Appeal No.191 of 2018  

ABCD  v.  Union of India  

18    

Jatia  vs.  M.L. Wadhawan etc.4 prosecution was directed to be launched  

after prima facie satisfaction was recorded by this Court.  

16.  It has also been laid down by this Court in Chandra Shashi v. Anil  

Kumar Verma5  that a person who makes an attempt to deceive the court,  

interferes with the administration of justice and can be held guilty of  

contempt of court.  In that case a husband who had filed a fabricated  

document to oppose the prayer of his wife seeking transfer of matrimonial  

proceedings was found guilty of contempt of court and sentenced to two  

weeks imprisonment.  It was observed as under:   

“1.The stream of administration of justice has to remain  

unpolluted so that purity of court’s atmosphere may give  

vitality to all the organs of the State. Polluters of judicial  

firmament are, therefore, required to be well taken care of to  

maintain the sublimity of court’s environment; so also to  

enable it to administer justice fairly and to the satisfaction of  

all concerned.  

2. Anyone who takes recourse to fraud, deflects the course  

of judicial proceedings; or if anything is done with oblique  

motive, the same interferes with the administration of  

justice. Such persons are required to be properly dealt with,  

not only to punish them for the wrong done, but also to deter  

others from indulging in similar acts which shake the faith  

of people in the system of administration of justice.  

14. The legal position thus is that if the publication be with  

intent to deceive the court or one made with an intention to  

 4 (1987) 3 SCC 367  5 (1995) 1 SCC 421

Writ Petition (Criminal) Appeal No.191 of 2018  

ABCD  v.  Union of India  

19    

defraud, the same would be contempt, as it would interfere  

with administration of justice. It would, in any case, tend to  

interfere with the same. This would definitely be so if a  

fabricated document is filed with the aforesaid mens rea. In  

the case at hand the fabricated document was apparently to  

deceive the court; the intention to defraud is writ large. Anil  

Kumar is, therefore, guilty of contempt.”  

  In K.D. Sharma v. Steel Authority of India Limited and others6 it  

was observed:   

“39. If the primary object as highlighted in Kensington  

Income Tax Commrs.7 is kept in mind, an applicant who does  

not come with candid facts and “clean breast” cannot hold a  

writ of the court with “soiled hands”. Suppression or  

concealment of material facts is not an advocacy. It is a  

jugglery, manipulation, manoeuvring or misrepresentation,  

which has no place in equitable and prerogative jurisdiction.  

If the applicant does not disclose all the material facts fairly  

and truly but states them in a distorted manner and misleads  

the court, the court has inherent power in order to protect  

itself and to prevent an abuse of its process to discharge the  

rule nisi and refuse to proceed further with the examination  

of the case on merits. If the court does not reject the petition  

on that ground, the court would be failing in its duty. In fact,  

such an applicant requires to be dealt with for contempt of  

court for abusing the process of the court.”  

 In Dhananjay Sharma v. State of Haryana and others8 filing of a  

false affidavit was the basis for initiation of action in contempt jurisdiction  

and the concerned persons were punished.   

 6 (2008) 12 SCC 481  7 (1917) 1 KB 486 : 86 LJKB 257 : 116 LT 136 (CA)  8 (1995) 3 SCC 757

Writ Petition (Criminal) Appeal No.191 of 2018  

ABCD  v.  Union of India  

20    

17. In the circumstances a notice is required to be issued to the petitioner  

in suo motu exercise of power of this Court “why action in contempt be not  

initiated against her and why appropriate direction be not passed under  

Section 195(1)(a)(i) of the Code”3.  The Registry is directed to register the  

matter as suo motu proceedings and send a copy of this Order to the  

Petitioner, who is directed to appear in-person before this Court on  

14.01.2020.  

18. With the aforesaid observations this writ petition stands disposed  

of.  

………………………J.  

[Uday Umesh Lalit]  

………………………J.  

[Indu Malhotra]  

New Delhi;  

December 10, 2019.