The Delhi High Court has stayed the operation of an order directing registration of an FIR against police officers after a Special POCSO Court directed such registration in connection with the police team's visit to the residence of respondent no. 2 to apprehend her son.
Justice Girish Kathpalia held that the legal issue required detailed consideration, particularly where the Special POCSO Court had itself recorded a prima facie finding that no offence under the POCSO Act was made out.
The proceedings arose from an order dated August 24, 2026, passed by the Special Judge (POCSO Act), directing the concerned DCP to register an FIR under the relevant provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) against the police officers who are the petitioners before the High Court.
According to the circumstances placed before the High Court by the petitioners, police officials from Delhi and Faridabad, including three lady constables, had gone to the residence of respondent no. 2 in Badarpur, Delhi, to apprehend her son, who was stated to be involved in a number of criminal cases. The petitioners also submitted that relevant General Diary entries had been recorded at the concerned police stations.
The petitioners' counsel submitted that respondent no. 2 resisted the arrest of her son and threatened to get the police officials involved in false cases under the POCSO Act through complaints to be lodged by her granddaughters.
As the son could not be found at the residence, the police team, which included three lady constables, took respondent no. 2 to PS Jaitpur for recording a General Diary entry. She was thereafter taken by the Haryana Police officials to Mahila Thana, Sector-16, Faridabad for questioning.
Respondent no. 2 subsequently approached the Special Judge (POCSO Act) under Section 175(3) of the BNSS. The application was allowed, leading to the direction for registration of an FIR against the police officers.
A significant aspect noted by the High Court was that the Special Judge had recorded in paragraph 47 of the impugned order a prima facie finding that no offence under the POCSO Act was made out. This finding was reached after considering CCTV footage and video recordings.
The police officers argued that, once the Special Judge had reached that finding, the application under Section 175(3) BNSS should have been sent to the competent Magistrate instead of the Special Court itself passing the FIR direction.
The respondent, however, argued that the finding was only prima facie and did not prevent local police from registering a case if sufficient material existed. The Court noted that the operative direction specifically concerned registration under relevant provisions of the BNS.
The High Court observed:
"The question to be deliberated upon is as to whether in a case where the Special Judge under any statute arrives at a finding that no offence under the said statute is made out, they should transmit the application under Section 175(3) BNSS to the magisterial court or not."
The Court observed that the issue required detailed consideration, with both sides required to address it at length. Since the hearing had already continued for around 40 minutes and detailed submissions could not be completed, the Court stayed the operation of the impugned order until the next date.
The matter has been listed for December 18, 2026. The Court also directed that the digitised record of the POCSO Court be requisitioned and ordered the SHO of Jaitpur Police Station and the SHO of Mahila Thana, Sector-16, Faridabad, to file their complete records.
Case Title: Sub Inspector Jitender & Ors. v. State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr. / Inspector Sunil Kumar & Ors. v. State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr.
Case Number: CRL.REV.P. 539/2026 & CRL.REV.P. 541/2026
Judge: Justice Girish Kathpalia
Decision Date: September 14, 2026
-300x169.webp)
 Act (UAPA)-300x169.webp)
