Ombir vs The Commissioner Of Police And Ors.
- Court
- Delhi High Court
$~89
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 9862/2026 and CM APPLs. 45913/2026., 45914/2026
OMBIR .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Ombir, Petitioner in person
versus
THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE AND
ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Gaurav Mishra, CGSC and
Mr. Ayush Kasana, Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
% 21.07.2026
C. HARI SHANKAR, J.
1. The present writ petition assails order dated 15 January 2026
1
passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal in MA 1517/2023 in
OA 1669/2011. The petitioner, as the applicant in MA 1517/2023,
sought initiation of criminal proceedings against the Joint
2
Commissioner of Police (Northern Range) under Section 340 of the
3
erstwhile Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 . The Tribunal has
dismissed the MA, against which the petitioner has approached this
Court.
2. This is a case of gross abuse of the process of law.
1
“Tribunal” hereinafter
2
“JCP” hereinafter
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:PRAMOD
KUMAR VATS
Signing Date:28.07.2026
15:57:24
W.P.(C) 9862/2026 Page 1 of 9
3. Disciplinary proceedings were instituted against the petitioner
while he was working as a Constable in the Delhi Police. An inquiry
4
ensued, in which the Inquiry Officer held the charges against the
petitioner to be partly proved, to the extent of having misbehaved with
his superior at a public place.
4. This was followed by order dated 19 November 2009 passed by
5
the Disciplinary Authority , the Additional Deputy Commissioner of
Police, as the DA of the petitioner, punishing him with permanent
withholding of one increment. The petitioner appealed against the
said order. The appeal was dismissed by the Appellate Authority on
18 March 2010.
5. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner approached the Tribunal by
way of OA 1669/2011. By order dated 22 November 2011, the
Tribunal dismissed the OA.
6. This order was challenged by the petitioner before this Court by
way of WP(C) 6223/2012. By order dated 17 April 2013, this Court
remanded OA 1669/2011 to the Tribunal for de novo adjudication.
7. The de novo adjudication once again culminated in dismissal,
by the Tribunal, of OA 1669/2011 by order dated 3 September 2014.
8. The petitioner filed RA 217/2014 for review of the decision
3
“Cr.P.C” hereinafter
4
“IO” hereinafter
5
“DA” hereinafter
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:PRAMOD
KUMAR VATS
Signing Date:28.07.2026
15:57:24
W.P.(C) 9862/2026 Page 2 of 9
dated 3 September 2014, which was also dismissed by the Tribunal on
12 July 2016.
9. Assailing this decision, the petitioner approached this Court by
means of WP(C) 3691/2017, which was disposed of, by this Court, by
judgment dated 18 January 2019, modifying the judgment of the
Tribunal.
10. The petitioner, thereafter, filed Review Petition 82/2019 before
this Court, seeking review of the judgment dated 18 January 2019,
which was dismissed by this Court on 25 February 2019.
11. The decisions of this Court were carried by the petitioner in
appeal to the Supreme Court by way of SLP(C) 11604-11605/2019,
which were also dismissed on 31 July 2019.
12. Thus far, the civil proceedings instituted by the petitioner.
13. Having thus lost up to the Supreme Court, the petitioner
launched an attack on the respondents through the process of criminal
law.
14. The petitioner first filed WP (Crl.) 460/2021 for initiating
proceedings against Mr. Sudhir Singh, the IO, on the ground that, in
the Inquiry Report, there was an erroneous translation, into English, of
one of the statements made by PW-1. This writ petition was disposed
of, by this Court, on 28 July 2021 with liberty to challenge the
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:PRAMOD
KUMAR VATS
Signing Date:28.07.2026
15:57:24
W.P.(C) 9862/2026 Page 3 of 9
impugned order before an appropriate forum.
15. Instead of doing so, the petitioner re-approached the Tribunal
by way of MA 2637/2021, once again seeking initiation of criminal
proceedings, against Mr. Sudhir Singh under Section 340 of the
Cr.P.C, for erroneously translating, into English, the afore-noted
statement of the PW. The prayers in this MA read thus:
“PRAYER
Therefore on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Applicant
most humbly and respectfully prays that this Hon'ble Tribunal may
graciously be pleased;
1. to direct the Ld. Principal Registrar of this Hon'ble
Tribunal to initiate proceedings under Section 340 of
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 against the Respondent No.
5 for commission of offense under Section 195 of the
Indian Penal Code by submitting Altered English
Translation of the Statement of PW - I before the Courts of
Law which had the effect of misleading the Courts and
miscarriage in the administration, of justice to the Applicant
who was punished due to submission of that Altered
English Translation of the Statement of PW I before the
Hon'ble courts.
2. to direct the Respondents to follow the Orders of the
Hon'ble Delhi High Court dated 18.01.2019 in its letter and
spirit so that the punishment to withholding of one future
increment would not have the effect of postponing his
future increments, promotions or any other benefits.
3. to consider the Original Hindi Statement of PW-1
and modify the Orders of this Hon’ble Tribunal dated
03.09.2014 which was based on the altered English
Translation of the Hindi Statement of PW-I.
4. to Pass any other order(s) as deem fit and proper in
the interest of Justice.”
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:PRAMOD
KUMAR VATS
Signing Date:28.07.2026
15:57:24
W.P.(C) 9862/2026 Page 4 of 9
MA 2637/2021 was withdrawn by the petitioner on 26 August 2022
“with liberty in accordance with law”.
16. Piggybacking on the said liberty, the petitioner again
approached the Tribunal by way of MA 3745/2022, this time seeking
initiation of proceedings under Section 340 against the JCP, instead of
the IO, though the JCP had nothing to do with the translation of the
statement of PW-1 . The petitioner’s contention was that, having acted
on the basis of the Inquiry Report and awarded penalty to the
petitioner, the JCP was as culpable as the IO in the act of erroneous
translation of the statement of PW-1 and was, therefore, equally liable
to be taken into task under Section 340 of the Cr.P.C.
17. MA 2637/2021 was also withdrawn by the petitioner on 26
August 2022, with liberty in accordance with law. The order dated 26
August 2022 reads, thus:
“ MA No. 2637/2021
Shri Prasad, learned counsel for the applicant seeks
permission to withdraw the present MA, vide which, he seeks
certain modifications in the Tribunal’s order, with liberty in
accordance with law. Permission is granted.
MA stands dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty, in
accordance with law.”
18. Undaunted and unfazed, the petitioner again approached the
Tribunal by way of MA 1517/2023, seeking institution of the
proceedings under Section 340 of the Cr.P.C against the JCP .
The Tribunal has, by order dated 15 January 2026, dismissed the MA,
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:PRAMOD
KUMAR VATS
Signing Date:28.07.2026
15:57:24
W.P.(C) 9862/2026 Page 5 of 9
against which the petitioner has now once again approached this
Court.
19. Clearly, the petitioner has a trigger-happy litigant. Possibly, the
expenses in litigation are so minimal that the petitioner does not find
anything irregular in burdening the Court again and again on the same
issue, that, too, for institution of criminal proceedings against a person
who has nothing to do with the alleged act of perjury. Having failed
in obtaining the relief he seeks upto the Supreme Court, the petitioner
has now adopted a practice of personally targeting the respondent’s
officers with threatened criminal proceedings, possibly with a hope of
obtaining some succour.
20. By his own acts, the petitioner has foreclosed any option, with
us, to allow him to withdraw the present petition, as withdrawing of a
petition does not appear, to the petitioner, to be any impediment in his
reinstituting the very same proceedings once again.
21. We, therefore, are not in a position to extend, to the petitioner,
the option of being permitted to withdraw the present petition.
22. The petitioner, as already noted, has given up his plea for
initiation of criminal proceedings under Section 340 of the Cr.P.C.
against Mr. Sudhir Singh, the IO, and has been targeting the JCP both
in the earlier MA 3745/2022 as well as MA 1517/2023 in which the
presently impugned order has been passed.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:PRAMOD
KUMAR VATS
Signing Date:28.07.2026
15:57:24
W.P.(C) 9862/2026 Page 6 of 9
23. According to the petitioner, though the JCP is not involved in
the translation of the statement of the PW, by accepting the inquiry
report of the IO and acting on its basis, the JCP rendered himself
equally liable to be proceeded against under Section 340 of the
Cr.P.C. If this reasoning is to be accepted it could result in the
startling sequitur that the Tribunal, this Court, and perhaps even the
Supreme Court, if they were to accept the decision of the DA, would
all become liable under Section 340 of the Cr.P.C.
24. To say the least, the petitioner’s stand is preposterous.
25. The Tribunal has, in the impugned order, rejected the
petitioner’s application. The Tribunal notes that Sudhir Singh, as the
IO, was not leading any evidence before the Tribunal and could not,
therefore, be mulcted under Section 340 of the Cr.P.C. read with
Section 175 of the IPC. He was merely inquiring into the allegations
against the petitioner, for an on behalf of the DA. Besides, notes the
Tribunal, the IO was not even impleaded as a respondent in the MA.
26. The Tribunal has also noted, quite correctly, that the petitioner
never raised the issue of erroneous translation of the statement of PW-
1 either in his representation against the inquiry report before the DA
or in his appeal before the appellate authority, or even in his OA
before the Tribunal. It was only after he faced defeat before the
Supreme Court that the petitioner decided to channelize the criminal
process of law, having failed to obtain the reliefs that he seeks by way
of civil proceedings.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:PRAMOD
KUMAR VATS
Signing Date:28.07.2026
15:57:24
W.P.(C) 9862/2026 Page 7 of 9
27. Initiation of criminal proceedings is a serious matter. It cannot
be done on a whim. We find, far too often, litigants filing
applications, in pending civil proceedings, including service matters,
against the opposite party under Section 340 of the Cr PC. Unjustified
attempts in this direction appear to us, in most cases, to be intended at
pressurizing the opposite party, bereft of bona fides .
28. There is obviously nothing in the present petition. The Tribunal
has, quite correctly, observed that even if there was an error in the
translation of the statement of PW in the inquiry report, that could not
fasten any liability on the IO, who was merely inquiring into the
charges against the petitioner and not leading any evidence in any
court of law. Besides, the petitioner, in any case, has now given up
his prayer for proceeding against the IO under Section 340 of the Cr
PC.
29. The petitioner now targets the DA. The DA has nothing to do
with the aforenoted allegedly erroneous translation of the statement of
PW-1. It cannot be that every authority in the adjudicatory ladder,
who has accepted the report of the IO or acted on its basis, becomes
complicit under Section 340 of the Cr.P.C.
30. It is impossible for us to believe that the petitioner, who was a
police officer, is unaware of these fundamentals of the Cr.P.C. We say
no more.
31. The manner in which the legal process – particularly the
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:PRAMOD
KUMAR VATS
Signing Date:28.07.2026
15:57:24
W.P.(C) 9862/2026 Page 8 of 9
criminal process – has been abused by the petitioner deserves to be
deprecated. The abuse is so flagrant that it is not possible for us to
merely allow the matter to rest by dismissing this writ petition.
32. The order that we passed has necessarily to partake of some
degree of deterrence, so as to ensure that the petitioner does not
embark on any such further misadventure.
33. We are, therefore, constrained, in the present case, to not only
to dismiss the writ petition, but also to award costs.
34. The petition is accordingly dismissed with a cost of ₹ 15,000/-
to be paid by the petitioner to the Delhi High Court Legal Services
Authority within a period of three weeks from today.
C. HARI SHANKAR, J.
VINOD KUMAR, J.
JULY 21, 2026
AR/DSN
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:PRAMOD
KUMAR VATS
Signing Date:28.07.2026
15:57:24
W.P.(C) 9862/2026 Page 9 of 9