It seems the image of Delhi Police officers has taken a severe beating in the eye of the court. A city court judge’s opinion about the Delhi Police was out in the open when he refused to grant time to an inspector who had to explain the delay in filing of a chargesheet, saying that it would only lead to the production of cooked-up facts.

“Granting an opportunity to file a written application would amount to providing an opportunity to the police officials to come out with concocted facts and stories,” Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Lokesh Kumar Sharma said.

The judge’s remarks came during a recent hearing at the Karkardooma Courts, when Inspector V S Malik, posted as Station House Officer (SHO) at the Gokulpuri police station, appeared in court to explain the delay in filing of a chargesheet in a suicide attempt case.

In the case, one Manoj Kumar was charged with an attempt to commit suicide in 2006. Seeking his prosecution, the police had recently filed a chargesheet against Kumar, who has been out on bail.

However, the act of filing the chargesheet after two years did not go down well with the court, which observed that the chargesheet was filed long after the stipulated time. Venting its ire on the SHO, who had forwarded the chargesheet without noticing the time lag, the court had summoned him to provide an explanation.

In court, the officer refrained from submitting a written reply to the court’s notice and offered his “unconditional apology” for submitting the time-barred chargesheet. Subsequently, the officer sought another opportunity to file an application to explain the delay so that the accused could be prosecuted. Kumar faces a maximum imprisonment of one year under the penal provision.

Angered over this ‘carelessness’, the court, however, threw out the plea and said when the SHO had nothing to explain when present in court in person, there was no reason why he should be given another opportunity to present “concocted facts”.

The court refused to take cognizance of the chargesheet and held that in the given circumstances discharging the accused would be right.