N. G. Nandi, J. ( 1 ) THIS writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (hereinafter referred to as "the Code") concerns itself with the non-registration of the F. I. R. for the offence under Section 376 Indian Penal Code on the basis of the complaint dated 22. 2. 1998 and the transfer of the investigation of the case to any other authority except the police officers of Police Station Naraina, New Delhi. ( 2 ) THE facts emerging from the petition are that the petitioner is the aunt of one Meenakshi and were staying together in the Jhuggi of the petitioner situated opposite B-247, Naraina Vihar, New Delhi; that on 22. 2. 1998 at 3. 30 a. m. the petitioner heard her husband scolding somebody outside the jhuggi. She got up and came out of the jhuggi and found her husband scolding their niece Meenakshi outside the jhuggi; that on asking, the petitioner was told by her husband that Meenakshi was with Gaurav son of Kuldeep Singh in the adjacent jhuggi. Thereupon the petitioner asked Meenakshi as to what was she doing with Gaurav in the jhuggi. Meenakshi stated that Gaurav came at about 1. 30 a. m. after threatening and intimidating her, forced her and took her to the other jhuggi and committed rape on her and both were scared because of the sound of opening of the door of the jhuggi. Meenakshi also stated that if she had not obeyed the dictates of Gaurav then Gaurav would have defamed her in the whole village. Meenakshi told that it was before three months in the month of November, 1997 Gaurav had raped her consecutively for three times i. e. on 21st, 22nd and 23rd November and as a result of which in the month of January 1998 she felt nausea and started vomiting and her regular mensuration course got abruptly stopped and she found herself to be pregnant; that she talked about her pregnancy to Gaurav but he avoided it and did not pay any attention instead he started accusing her. Thereafter Meenakshi met mother of Gaurav i. e. wife of Kuldeep Singh and other family members; that Meenakshi was called by Chandu and Dillu. Thereafter Meenakshi met mother of Gaurav i. e. wife of Kuldeep Singh and other family members; that Meenakshi was called by Chandu and Dillu. Dillu gave something in a tumbler to drink and after consuming, she fainted and when she regained senses, she found her private part being cleaned to remove the blood; that the pregnancy was terminated/aborted; that thereafter Gaurav would frequently force Meenakshi and rape her under the threat that he would expose her in the village and tell everyone about the abortion so she was obliged to accede to his commands; that Gaurav followed her to the place of her uncle and early in the morning he raped her during the night of 21/22. 2. 1998; that complainant (the aunt) called the father and mother of minor Meenakshi from Moradabad. They reached Delhi at 2. 00 p. m. After deliberations by the family members at Naraina and keeping in view the gravity of the matter, it was decided to report the matter to the police. The petitioner came to the police station at about 3. 30 p. m. with a detailed complaint accompanied by her husband and Meenakshi s father and met the Duty Officer, P. S. Naraina and requested him to enable a meeting with the S. H. O. The Duty Officer did not allow the petitioner and other people to meet the S. H. O. on the pretext that the S. H. O. had been on night duty and hence he is having rest in his chamber and said that it would not be proper to disturb him; that the petitioner and her family members requested the Duty Officer to allow them to meet the Additional S. H. O. but they were told that Additional S. H. O. was not in the Police Station; that because of the persistence the petitioner and her family members were taken by the Duty Officer to one S. I. upstairs on the first floor; that without recording the statement SI asked about the basis for the complaint; that in between the conduct of the said S. I. became completely unbecoming of a policeman. He asked many embarrassing questions to the minor girl which resulted in serious humiliation to the prosecutrix and her parents. He asked many embarrassing questions to the minor girl which resulted in serious humiliation to the prosecutrix and her parents. After half an hour, the said S. I. came along with the petitioner, prosecutrix and the relatives and met the S. H. O. in the ground floor room. The S. H. O. directed the said SI to visit the spot and take statement of the neighbours. The said SI along with the petitioner took the victim, the father of the victim. The victim identified the jhuggi where she was raped by the accused. The S. I. came back hurriedly and reported the whole matter to the S. H. O. in presence of the petitioner and her family members. The S. H. O. threw the complaint on the face of the petitioner and told that they were not going to register the F. I. R. However, on the insistence of the petitioner, receipt of the complaint was given. The copy of the complaint is Annexure P-1. At 6. 30 p. m. the petitioner preferred a complaint to D. C. P. at P. S. Vasant Vihar under proper receipt. On the same day at 8. 30 p. m. the father of the victim gave an urgent telegram to the Commissioner of Police, Lt. Governor etc. but till date respondents No. 1 and 2 did not register any F. I. R. against the accused. ( 3 ) IT will be seen from the above that what transpires from the averments in the petition is that a serious offence under Section 376 Indian Penal Code allegedly took place during the night of 21/22. 2. 1998. The petitioner, the aunt of the victim with written complaint approached P. S. Naraina at about 3. 30 p. m. ; gave written complaint to the D. C. P. at P. S. Vasant Vihar at about 6. 30 p. m. and the father of the victim sent telegram at about 8. 30 p. m. to the respondent No. 1, Lt. Governor of Delhi etc. yet no F. I. R. under Section 154 of the Code was registered and no investigation commenced till 26. 3. 1998. ( 4 ) VIDE order dated 25. 3. 1998 notice was issued, also requiring the respondents to report as to what action was taken on the petitioner s complaint dated 22. 2. 1998. Respondent No. 2 filed reply stating that on 22. 2. 3. 1998. ( 4 ) VIDE order dated 25. 3. 1998 notice was issued, also requiring the respondents to report as to what action was taken on the petitioner s complaint dated 22. 2. 1998. Respondent No. 2 filed reply stating that on 22. 2. 1998 petitioner Kavita Devi submitted a complaint alleging that during the night intervening 21/22. 2. 1998 between 1. 30 a. m. to 3. 30 a. m. her niece Meenakshi has been raped by a boy named Gaurav son of Kuldeep Singh resident of Moradabad, U. P. when she was sleeping with petitioner s family in Jhuggi No. B-247, NIA Phase-I, Naraina; that it was also alleged in the complaint that Meenakshi was raped by Gaurav at Moradabad, U. P. also and Gaurav s parents got her aborted at Moradabad after giving her something to drink; that after enquiry into the complaint a case FIR no. 98/98 dated 26. 3. 1998 under Section 376 Indian Penal Code has been registered, which is being investigated. ( 5 ) THUS, it is suggested that the offence under Section 376 Indian Penal Code on the basis of the complaint dated 22. 2. 1998 was registered on 26. 3. 1998 i. e. after more than a month of the occurrence. ( 6 ) IT has been argued by Mr. M. A. Hussain, learned counsel for the petitioner that the registration of FIR under Section 154 of the Code was deliberately delayed by the police of P. S. Naraina and no action taken in concert with the accused though a complaint disclosing commission of a cognizable offence of a serious nature under Section 376 Indian Penal Code was filed in P. S. Naraina at about 3. 30 p. m. on 22. 2. 1998 and a complaint to the D. C. P. at P. S. Vasant Vihar, New Delhi at about 6. 30 p. m. and a telegram to the Lt. Governor, on the same day. ( 7 ) CONSIDERING the reply dated 1. 4. 1998 and perusing the original record produced by respondent No. 2-S. H. O. and the endorsements on the complaint by the S. H. O. on 26. 3. 1998 apparently an inordinate delay of almost one month and four days in registration of the case was observed and by the Order dated 1. 4. 4. 1998 and perusing the original record produced by respondent No. 2-S. H. O. and the endorsements on the complaint by the S. H. O. on 26. 3. 1998 apparently an inordinate delay of almost one month and four days in registration of the case was observed and by the Order dated 1. 4. 98 this Court directed S. H. O. P. S. Naraina (respondent No. 2) as also S. I. Sanjay Mishra to file separate affidavits explaining the reason for the inordinate delay and stating that why the case was not registered on 22. 2. 1998 or immediately thereafter on 23. 2. 1998, also requiring respondent No. 2 to explain about the note dated 26. 3. 1998, which he appended at the bottom of the complaint under his signatures. ( 8 ) IT has been submitted by learned Additional Standing Counsel, Mr. S. S. Gandhi for the respondents that on 22. 2. 1998 and thereafter, as the victim was not present/available, her statement could not be recorded with regard to the allegations of rape on her by the accused and that is why no inquiry could be made much less registration of the F. I. R. and investigation into the allegations and the age verification including the ossification test of the victim. ( 9 ) RESPONDENT No. 2 in his subsequent affidavit dated 28. 4. 1998 states that the complaint was entered in the complaint register of the police station vide Diary No. 110 dated 22. 2. 1998. SI Sanjay Mishra, Emergency Officer on that day was sent at the spot immediately to inquiry into the matter and for taking necessary action. SI Sanjay Mishra conducted inquiries and recorded the statements of the complainant, her husband and other persons of the locality. On inquiries and inspection of the alleged spot and the jhuggi of the complainant, it appeared that no such incident had taken place. The complaint was kept pending for further inquiries from the alleged victim Meenakshi, alleged boy Gaurav and his parents. SI Sanjay Mishra directed the petitioner to call the alleged victim Meenakshi from Moradabad and furnish complete postal address of Meenakshi and alleged boy, namely Gaurav and his parents. The petitioner neither called the alleged victim Meenakshi from Moradabad nor furnished her postal address so that a letter could be sent to Moradabad to the concerned persons for joining the inquiries. The petitioner neither called the alleged victim Meenakshi from Moradabad nor furnished her postal address so that a letter could be sent to Moradabad to the concerned persons for joining the inquiries. ( 10 ) IT is pertinent to note that in the reply dated 1. 4. 1998 respondent No. 2 has not stated that on 22. 2. 1998 and even on 23. 2. 1998 victim Meenakshi was not present/available for the purpose of recording her statement. There is absolutely no reason assigned in Kthe reply dated 1. 4. 98 for non-registration of the F. I. R. on 22. 1998 or immediately thereafter. The reply dated 1. 4. 1998 is absolutely silent. The affidavit seeking to explain the non-recording of the FIR on 22. 2. 1998 or 23. 2. 1998 and an inquiry into the allegations leveled in the complaint comes forth only after the order dated 3. 4. 1998 passed by this Court. Even assuming that alleged victim was not available on 22. 2. 1998 or 23. 2. 1998 then in that event notice under Section 160 of the Code could have been served on the complainant requiring her to bring/keep present the victim for the purpose of inquiry/her statement. Even a note suggesting non-availability of the victim on 22/23. 2. 1998 for recording her statement and medical examination could have been made on the complaint on 22. 2. 1998 and 23. 2. 1998. It is pertinent to note that even in the affidavit dated 28. 4. 1998, it has been testified that SI Sanjay Mishra was sent to the spot immediately to inquire into the matter and for taking necessary action and the inquiry was conducted by SI Sanjay Mishra and recorded the statement of the complainant, her husband and other persons of the locality and the inquiries and the inspection of the alleged spot and the jhuggi suggested that no incident had taken place there and the complaint was kept pending for further inquiries from the alleged victim Meenakshi, alleged boy Gaurav and his parents. It is difficult to comprehend as to why spot should be visited in a matter like this at least before registering the FIR and sending the victim for her medical examination with regard to the alleged rape and her age. It is difficult to comprehend as to why spot should be visited in a matter like this at least before registering the FIR and sending the victim for her medical examination with regard to the alleged rape and her age. Moreover, it is not suggested as to what steps were taken by SI Sanjay Mishra for procuring the presence of the victim, for the purpose of inquiry/ statement. It is pertinent to note that Sanjay Mishra in his affidavit has stated that on 26. 3. 1998 on the basis of the complaint of the petitioner, case under Section 376 Indian Penal Code was registered at P. S. Naraina vide FIR No. 98/98, after discussion with the Senior Officers, in order to legally bound all concerned persons including the victim and the alleged person to join the investigation which was not possible in a mere inquiry into the complaint without registration of the case. This itself suggests the falsity on the part of SI Sanjay Mishra since on his own say without registration of a case in a mere inquiry into the complaint, it was not possible to legally bound all concerned persons including the victim and the alleged persons to join investigation. It may also be noted that neither the original complaint nor the affidavit filed by SI Sanjay Mishra or the S. H. O. suggest as to who was that Senior Police Officer with whom the deponent discussed the matter and thereafter case registered vide FIR No. 98/98. It may be appreciated that the following is the only endorsement on the complaint : "discussed with Senior Officers. D. O. to register a case under Section 376 Indian Penal Code and hand over the investigation to SI Sanjay Mishra. sd/- sho Naraina 26. 3. 98" ( 11 ) THE endorsement is of 26. 3. 1998 i. e. the date on which the case is registered. There is absolutely nothing to suggest as to what the Incharge P. S. Naraina did from 22. 2. 1998 at 3. 00 p. m. till the case was registered on 26. 3. 1998. In view of our order dated 1. 4. 1998 we would not dwell much upon the non-registration of the case and the consequent dereliction ofduty on the part of the police officials of P. S. Naraina, New Delhi i. e. SHO-respondent No. 2 and SI Sanjay Mishra. 00 p. m. till the case was registered on 26. 3. 1998. In view of our order dated 1. 4. 1998 we would not dwell much upon the non-registration of the case and the consequent dereliction ofduty on the part of the police officials of P. S. Naraina, New Delhi i. e. SHO-respondent No. 2 and SI Sanjay Mishra. Looking to the facts and circumstances, as pointed out above, we deem it proper to direct that SHO-respondent No. 2 and SI Sanjay Mishra of P. S. Naraina concerned in the non- registration of the case on the basis of the complaint dated 22. 2. 1998 till 26. 3. 1998 and thereby dereliction of official duty on their part, be dealt with departmentally. ( 12 ) THE next limb of the argument advanced on behalf of the petitioner is that SI Sanjay Mishra has willfully ignored/disregarded the order dated 3. 4. 1998 whereby the investigation was ordered to be transferred to the District Crime Cell (South West) Delhi Police inasmuch as on 4th, 5th and 6th, SI Sanjay Mishra represented himself as the I. O. in the case and did not stop handling the case from 3. 4. 1998 itself when he was divested of the investigation in the case by this Court. Vide order dated 3. 4. 1998, this Court directed the transfer of investigation to District Crime Cell (South-West District) and that the papers relating to investigation be promptly handed over by the Investigating Officer as well as the S. H. O. to the District Crime Cell after retaining photocopies thereof. ( 13 ) RESPONDENT No. 2 in his reply dated 28. 4. 1998 testified to the effect that after the order of this Court on 3. 4. 1998 directing transfer of investigation to the District Crime Cell (South-West) no investigation has been conducted by SI Sanjay Mishra or the local police of P. S. Naraina except producing Meenakshi before the Metropolitan Magistrate concerned for recording her statement under Section 164 Criminal Procedure Code. as the application for the same had already been moved on 30. 3. 1998 and the date 6. 4. 1998 for recording the statement was given by the Metropolitan Magistrate concerned. ( 14 ) SI Sanjay Mishra in his reply-affidavit has testified to the same effect stating thereby that after 3. 4. as the application for the same had already been moved on 30. 3. 1998 and the date 6. 4. 1998 for recording the statement was given by the Metropolitan Magistrate concerned. ( 14 ) SI Sanjay Mishra in his reply-affidavit has testified to the same effect stating thereby that after 3. 4. 1998 no investigation was conducted by the deponent or the local police of P. S. Naraina except producing the victim before the Metropolitan Magistrate concerned for recording her statement under Section 164 of the Code as the application for the same had already been moved on 30. 3. 1998 and the date 6. 4. 1998 for recording the statement was given. In the rejoinder-affidavit SI Sanjay Mishra has admitted that the case file remained with him till 7. 4. 1998 after the order dated 3. 4. 1998 as in between there were holidays of Saturday and Sunday on 4th and 5th April 1998 after the order of this Court; that as the case file was with the deponent and the accused had already moved application for anticipatory bail before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, therefore, the case file was produced in the Court by the deponent for perusal. The deponent also collected the ossification test report of the prosecutrix on 6. 4. 1998, which was already prepared by the Doctor on 1. 4. 1998; that no action except the abovementioned three acts, was taken by the deponent; that the production of the prosecutrix before the Metropolitan Magistrate concerned for recording her statement under Section 164 of the Code, collection of the ossification test report and the production of the same along with the case file before the ASJ were in compliance with the orders by the Courts in these behalf. ( 15 ) THE perusal of the case diary suggests that the date of occurrence is during the night intervening 21/22. 2. 1998 and the FIR registered on 26. 3. 1998 at 7. 35 p. m. It is further suggested that on 30. 3. 1998 an application was moved in the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate Shri V. K. Gupta for recording the statement of the prosecutrix under Section 164 of the Code and the date for the said purpose was fixed for 4. 4. 1998. The case diary of 1. 4. 35 p. m. It is further suggested that on 30. 3. 1998 an application was moved in the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate Shri V. K. Gupta for recording the statement of the prosecutrix under Section 164 of the Code and the date for the said purpose was fixed for 4. 4. 1998. The case diary of 1. 4. 1998 suggests that on the said date Meenakshi was taken for ossification test accompanied by Lady Constable Geeta to S. J. Hospital, New Delhi and the ossification test was conducted. The ossification test report was to be collected lateron. The perusal of case diary of 3. 4. 1998 suggests that in Writ Petition No. 209/98 (present petition) this Court upon hearing the complaint of the petitioner, directed the transfer of the investigation to District Crime Cell, South-West District; that the copy of the order could not be obtained till evening and on receipt of the copy of the order/directions, DCP will be moved for the transfer of the case; that thereafter an application moved by accused Gaurav son of Kuldeep Singh seeking Anticipatory bail, fixed for 4. 4. 1998, was received. The case diary of 4. 4. 1998 suggests that the SI concerned attended the court of ASJ Shri M. A. Khan in connection with hearing of the Anticipatory bail application filed by accused Gaurav; that as the statement of the prosecutrix under Section 164 of the Code and the ossification test report were not available, the order on anticipatory bail was deferred and the hearing of the said application was adjourned for 7. 4. 1998; that the learned Additional Public Prosecutor made a statement in the court that till 7. 4. 1998 the police will not arrest the accused; that thereafter prosecutrix Meenakshi was taken to Court No. 37 of Shri V. K. Gupta, M. M. for recording her statement under Section 164 of the Code for which date of 4. 4. 1998 was fixed on 30. 3. 1998 and the prosecutrix Meenakshi was presented before the court whereupon the recording of the statement was further adjourned to 6. 4. 1998. The prosecutrix and her aunt Kavita were informed about the next date i. e. of 6. 4. 1998; that the ossification test report could not be collected from the S. J. Hospital as Dr. 3. 1998 and the prosecutrix Meenakshi was presented before the court whereupon the recording of the statement was further adjourned to 6. 4. 1998. The prosecutrix and her aunt Kavita were informed about the next date i. e. of 6. 4. 1998; that the ossification test report could not be collected from the S. J. Hospital as Dr. Rajiv Chaudhry, who had taken bone age X-Rays had not reported to the duty and because of which the ossification test report was not made available. The case diary of 6. 4. 1998 suggests that ossification test report of the prosecutrix MLC No. GRR 5578 was collected from S. J. Hospital, New Delhi. Copy of the ossification test report and four copies of X-Rays were entrusted to the S. I. which were taken in police custody. Thereafter prosecutrix was taken to Patiala House Courts and produced before Shri V. K. Gupta, M. M. for recording of her statement; that the statement of prosecutrix was recorded by the M. M. under Section 164 of the code in his chamber, copy whereof was given to the S. I. The case diary of 7. 4. 1998 suggests that SI attended the court of ASj Shri M. A. khan in Patiala House for hearing of Anticipatory bail application of the accused and produced the ossification test report as well as statement of the prosecutrix recorded u/s. 164 of the Code. The accused was granted anticipatory bail; that thereafter on 7. 4. 1998 through the Reader to SHO/n, order of DCP No. 3775-77/so-DCP/so dated 7. 4. 1998 for transfer of case file and further investigation was received by the SI, whereupon the case file was sent to MHC (R) for further necessary action. ( 16 ) IT is suggested from the case diary of 7. 4. 1998 that the order No. No. 3775-77/so-DCP/so dated 7. 4. 1998 transferring the case file which was sent to SI Sanjay Mishra through the Reader to SHO/n was received and thereafter the SI sent the case file to MHC (R) for further investigation. It is not suggested at the same time as to when the copy of the order dated 3. 4. 1998 was got by SI Sanjay Mishra and when he moved for transfer of the case file for further investigation by District Crime Cell (South-West) pursuant to the order passed by this Court on 3. 4. 1998. It is not suggested at the same time as to when the copy of the order dated 3. 4. 1998 was got by SI Sanjay Mishra and when he moved for transfer of the case file for further investigation by District Crime Cell (South-West) pursuant to the order passed by this Court on 3. 4. 1998. As pointed out above, in the case diary dated 3. 4. 98 it is stated that on receipt of the copy of the order dated 3. 4. 1998 directing the transfer of investigation to DCC/sw the DCP would be moved for transfer of the case. In any case, it is suggested that the orders were received from the DCP transferring the case file for further investigation by DCC/sw on 7. 4. 1998 whereupon the case file was handed over to MHC (R) for further necessary action. It is suggested from the case diary as aforestated that application for recording statement of the prosecutrix u/s. 164 of the Code was moved before the M. M. on 30. 3. 1998 and the date for recording the statement was fixed for 4. 4. 1998, which was further adjourned to 6. 4. 1998; that the prosecutrix was taken to S. J. Hospital for ossification test on 1. 4. 1998 and the necessary X-Rays were taken on 1. 4. 1998. All these were done before 3. 4. 1998. On 4. 4. 1998 the prosecutrix was taken to the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate concerned for recording her statement as the date for the same was already fixed on 30. 3. 1998, which was further adjourned to 6. 4. 1998 and on that date the statement under Section 164 of the Code of the prosecutrix was recorded by the M. M. concerned. On 6. 4. 1998 the ossification test report was collected. The Anticipatory bail application moved by the accused Gaurav on 3. 4. 1998 was fixed for hearing on 4. 4. 1998 and SI Sanjay Mishra attended the court of ASJ concerned for the said purpose. For want of ossification test report and the statement under Section 164 of the Code the hearing of Anticipatory bail application was adjourned to 7. 4. 1998 and the accused was not arrested as the Public Prosecutor concerned made a statement before the Court that till 7. 4. 1998 the accused will not be arrested; that on 7. 4. For want of ossification test report and the statement under Section 164 of the Code the hearing of Anticipatory bail application was adjourned to 7. 4. 1998 and the accused was not arrested as the Public Prosecutor concerned made a statement before the Court that till 7. 4. 1998 the accused will not be arrested; that on 7. 4. 1998 the accused was granted relief under Section 438 of the Code and it is thereafter that the order passed by the DCP requiring the sending of the case file to DCC/sw was received by SI Sanjay Mishra through the Reader to SHO/n. It may be seen that the order dated 3. 4. 1998 does not suggest immediate or forthwith transfer of the investigation by P. S. Naraina. All what the order dated 3. 4. 1998 requires is the prompt transfer of the investigation to DCC/sw, Delhi. After 3. 4. 1998 all what has been done by SI Sanjay Mishra is that on 4. 4. 1998 and 6. 4. 1998 he took the prosecutrix to the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate concerned for recording her statement under Section 164 of the Code and that the ossification test report was collected on 6. 4. 1998 and thereafter attended the Court of ASJ for the hearing of Anticipatory bail application moved by accused Gaurav. It may be appreciated that no investigation much less effective as such has been done by SI Sanjay Mishra subsequent to the order dated 3. 4. 1998 passed by this Court. The production of prosecutrix in the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate concerned on 4. 4. 1998 and 6. 4. 1998 was pursuant to the application moved on 30. 3. 1998 for recording of her statement for which date fixed was 4. 4. 1998 and thereafter 6. 4. 1998. The prosecutrix was already taken to S. J. Hospital, New Delhi for ossification test on 1. 4. 1998. X-Rays etc. were taken on the said date and only the report of the ossification test was to be collected which was collected on 6. 4. 1998. Having regard to all these facts and circumstances, we do not regard any disobedience or disregard of the order dated 3. 4. 4. 1998. X-Rays etc. were taken on the said date and only the report of the ossification test was to be collected which was collected on 6. 4. 1998. Having regard to all these facts and circumstances, we do not regard any disobedience or disregard of the order dated 3. 4. 1998 passed by this Court transferring the investigation to District Crime Cell, South-West District, Delhi Police and it can not be said that SI Sanjay Mishra, in any manner, flouted or ignored the order dated 3. 4. 1998 passed by this Court much less intentional or in any manner malafide. ( 17 ) IT may be appreciated that in the main petition, one of the prayers is for issuance of a writ of mandamus or any other writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding respondent No. 1 and 2 to register the FIR on the basis of complaint dated 22. 2. 1998. It may be appreciated that the FIR on the basis of complaint dated 22. 2. 98 has been registered on 26. 3. 1998 for the offence under Section 376 Indian Penal Code and, therefore, this part of the prayer does not survive having become infructuous. ( 18 ) THE petitioner also prays for transfer of investigation of the case to any other authority except the police officers of P. S. Naraina. Vide order dated 3. 4. 1998 we have alreay directed the transfer of the further investigation in the case and as disclosed from the case diary, the order passed by DCP requiring sending of the case file to DCC/sw for further investigation has been communicated and served upon SI Sanjay Mishra through the Reader to SHO/n on 7. 4. 1998. The order dated 29. 4. 1998 suggests that the District Crime Cell has also filed status report. Under the circumstances, no other directions are required to be passed as the case already stands transferred to the DCC/sw, Delhi Police. ( 19 ) THE only direction in the facts and circumstances of the case, which is required to be passed, as pointed out above, is with regard to dereliction of duty by not registering the FIR on 22. 2. 1998 or on 23. 2. 1998 under Section 154 of the code on the basis of the complaint dated 22. 2. ( 19 ) THE only direction in the facts and circumstances of the case, which is required to be passed, as pointed out above, is with regard to dereliction of duty by not registering the FIR on 22. 2. 1998 or on 23. 2. 1998 under Section 154 of the code on the basis of the complaint dated 22. 2. 1998 filed by the complainant Kavita, aunt of the victim Meenakshi alleging serious offence under Section 376 Indian Penal Code We, therefore, direct respondent No. 1 to hold departmental inquiry against theerring police officers of P. S. Naraina, New Delhi i. e. SHO-respondent No. 2 and S. I. Sanjay Mishra and take appropriate action against such police officer/s for dereliction of duty if found guilty of not registering the FIR and taking necessary action in the matter. ( 20 ) PETITION disposed of accordingly.