Ram Mehar Singh vs State Of Nct Of Delhi & Ors

Ram Mehar Singh ... Appellant

Vs.

State of N.C.T. of Delhi & Ors. ... Respondents

With

CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS. 1587-1588 OF 2011

(Arising out of SLP(Crl.) Nos. 6719-6720 of 2008)

J U D G M E N T

Dr. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.

1. Leave granted in all the cases.

2. The criminal appeals arising out of S.L.P.(Crl.) Nos.5998-5999

of 2008 have been filed against the common judgment and order dated

28.5.2008 passed by the High Court of Delhi in L.P.A. Nos. 286/2008

and 289/2008. Though the matters had arisen before the Division

Bench from different judgments of the Single Judge Bench, however,

the same had been heard together and disposed of by the impugned

judgment and in all these cases, the Division Bench dismissed the

appeals filed by the State of N.C.T. of Delhi, respondents herein,

against the judgments of the learned Single Judge dated 28.2.2008 in

W.P. (Crl.) No. 1392 of 2007 and 25.2.2008 passed in W.P. (Crl.) No.

2448 of 2006, wherein it has been alleged by the writ petitioners that

the police authorities had misused their powers while resorting to the

provisions of Sections 107/151 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,

1973 (hereinafter called Cr.P.C.) and violated their fundamental rights.

A learned Single Judge had quashed the criminal proceedings under

Sections 107/151 Cr.P.C.; awarded a token compensation and further

directed the Central Bureau of Investigation (hereinafter called CBI) to

investigate the cases against the police officials who had allegedly

misused their powers, and directed the police administration to initiate

proceedings against such officials.

3. Facts and circumstances giving rise to Criminal Appeals arising

out of SLP (Crl.) Nos. 5998-5999 of 2008 are that there had been some

dispute between one Shri Raj Kumar Bansal and his wife Smt. Urvashi

Bansal. The writ petitioner Shri Purshottam Ramnani being a family

2

friend helped Smt. Urvashi Bansal financially by giving a huge amount

of loan and as the same was not returned, dispute arose between them

regarding the immovable properties. On the complaint of Smt. Urvashi

Bansal, the proceedings under Sections 107/151 Cr.P.C. were initiated

against the writ petitioner and in that respect he was produced before

the Special Executive Magistrate, Jahangir Puri, Delhi (hereinafter

called the Magistrate) on 25.8.2007, wherein he was released on

furnishing personal bond. The said Shri Purshottam Ramnani filed

W.P.(Crl.) No. 1392 of 2007 on 31.10.2007 alleging that in case there

was some dispute regarding the immovable property, the police could

not resort to the provisions of Sections 107/151 Cr.P.C., and since he

had been detained in jail for one day, there was violation of his

fundamental rights, therefore, he should be awarded compensation and

erring police officials be punished.

4. The writ petition was heard and disposed of by the learned

Single Judge vide judgment and order dated 28.2.2008 granting all

reliefs sought by the writ petitioner to the effect that proceedings under

Sections 107/151 Cr.P.C. were quashed. The court held that the writ

petitioner was illegally detained by invoking provisions of Sections

107/151 Cr.P.C. and the provisions of Section 145 Cr.P.C. could have

3

been invoked; a sum of Rs.50,000/- was awarded as token

compensation. The court further gave liberty to the said writ petitioner

to file suits for damages for tortuous liability against the erring police

officials and also for recovery of possession of the immovable

property.

5. Being aggrieved, the State of NCT of Delhi preferred L.P.A.

No.286 of 2008 and the same was dismissed by the impugned

judgment and order dated 28.5.2008.

6. The present appellant was SHO of the police station concerned at

the relevant time. Admittedly, in the writ petition he was not a party by

name, nor any notice had ever been issued to him and he had no

opportunity to defend himself. Even before the Division Bench in the

L.P.A. filed by the State he was not impleaded as a party. Thus, the

relevant submission on his behalf is that certain observations and

directions have been made against him though he had never been

heard.

7. Submission on behalf of the learned counsel for the contesting

respondents has been that not giving an opportunity of hearing to the

present appellant either before the learned Single Judge or the Division

4

Bench remains immaterial, for the reason, that he would be heard by

the concerned authorities during the disciplinary proceedings to be

initiated in pursuance of the impugned judgments and orders.

However, there is no denial by him of the fact that the present appellant

had neither been made a party by name nor he had been given any

notice of the proceedings and thus, he had no opportunity of being

heard. The judgments of the courts below are based on the premises

that instead of resorting to the provisions of Sections 107/151 Cr.P.C.

the provisions of Section 145 Cr.P.C. could have been invoked in the

present situation.

8. In Criminal Appeals arising out of SLP (Crl.) Nos. 6719-6720 of

2008, the facts had been that the appellant No.1-Sudesh Ranga being

the SHO of the Police Station had received a complaint from Ashok

Kumar Munna, the respondent herein against Keshav Kumar,

respondent No.2 that the water from his toilet had been entering into

the house of the complainant and damaged the entire wall because of

seepage, and foul smell was also coming. On being asked, the

respondent Keshav Kumar refused to carry out the repair and

quarrelled with him and beaten him. In view of the said complaint,

Keshav Kumar was detained under Sections 107/151 Cr.P.C. on

5

16.7.2006 and was produced before the Magistrate on 17.7.2006,

wherein he was directed to be released on furnishing personal bond of

Rs.5,000/- with one surety in the like amount. As he failed to furnish

the personal bond he was sent to judicial custody and was released only

on 18.7.2006 on furnishing the said bond. Keshav Kumar filed writ

petition on 30.10.2006 alleging the violation of his fundamental rights

by the police authorities by resorting to the provisions of Sections

107/151 Cr.P.C. The High Court entertained the said writ petition and

asked the respondent therein to submit the status report. The High

Court after considering the same disposed of the writ petition vide

order dated 25.2.2008 quashing the proceedings under Sections

107/151 Cr.P.C.; directing to pay a token compensation to the

complainant to the tune of Rs.50,000/- and further direction was issued

to the Commissioner of Police to initiate disciplinary proceedings

against the appellants.

9. Being aggrieved, the State of NCT of Delhi preferred L.P.A. No.

289 of 2008 which has been dismissed vide impugned judgment and

order dated 28.5.2008. Hence, these appeals.

6 10. As both the matters had been disposed of by the Division Bench

by the common judgment, we have heard them together alongwith

other Criminal Appeals arising out of SLP (Crl) Nos. 1773 of 2008 and

5702 of 2008 and are being disposed of by the common judgment.

11. Whatever may be the legal position, admittedly, the police

officials i.e. appellants had not been impleaded by name in the writ

petitions. The standing counsel appearing for the State of N.C.T. of

Delhi had taken notice on behalf of the parties excluding the private

parties. Thus, while hearing the writ petitions, these appellants had not

been given an opportunity of hearing at all before the writ court and

definitely the learned Single Judge passed certain orders/directions

against them.

12. Being aggrieved, the State filed L.P.As. before the Division

Bench wherein also none of these appellants had been impleaded and

both the appeals stood dismissed by the common judgment and order

dated 28.5.2008. Thus, even before the Division Bench, all these

appellants had not been given any opportunity to appear or plead their

defence. Even on merit, the opinion of the High Court in first case,

that the proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. could have been

7

resorted to instead of Sections 107/151 Cr.P.C. does not seem to be

correct. In fact it is the officer on spot who has to take a decision as

what provisions should be resorted to according to the prevailing

circumstances. Even in another case if there had been altercation,

abusing, threatening and beating, by no means, it can be held that

resorting to the provisions of Sections 107/151 Cr.P.C. was totally

unwarranted.

13. We have decided other connected appeals arising out of SLP

(Crl.) Nos. 1773 of 2008 and 5702 of 2008 giving reasons. These

appeals stand disposed of in terms of the same. In view of the above,

the judgments and orders impugned herein are set aside except to the

extent that in all these cases the proceedings under Sections 107/151

Cr.P.C. stood quashed. In first case liberty given by the High Court to

file a civil suit for recovery of immovable property shall remain intact.

...............................

J. (P.

SATHASIVAM)

...............................J.

(Dr. B.S. CHAUHAN)

New Delhi,

August 12, 2011

8

9