IMPORTANT POINT
For directing the CBI to hold the investigation the court must be satisfied that the opposite parties are very powerful and influential persons or the State authorities like top police officials are involved and the investigation has not proceeded with in proper direction or it has been biased.

Headnote:Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Sections 107/151 –Registration of case against respondents u/ss. 107/151 of Cr.pc-Writ petition thereagainst for quashment of proceedings-Allowed by High Court-Appeals against judgment passed by High Court by which it quashed criminal case registered against respondent nos. 3 and 4 and directed ‘CBI’ to investigate case in respect of allegations made by said respondents against appellant nos. 2 to 4; and awarded a compensation of Rs.25,000/- each to the said respondents for wrongful confinement- The status report showed that writ petitioners had been under the influence of alcohol and had been abusing, threatening and quarrelling each other at the public place- Magistrate had passed release order of said respondents- However, they could not be released because they failed to furnish the personal bond with a surety in the like amount- High Court reached the conclusion that said respondents had been kept behind the bar for one day resulting into violation of their fundamental rights, without realising that since they failed to furnish bonds, no other option was available and they were sent to judicial custody in view of the order of the Magistrate- High Court erred in awarding even token compensation to the tune of Rs.25,000/- each as High Court did not hold any enquiry and passed the order merely after considering status report submitted by appellant no.1 without hearing any of the persons against whom allegations of abuse of power had been made-Impugned judgment and order set aside except to the extent that proceedings under Sections 107/151 Cr.P.C. against contesting respondents stood quashed-Appeals allowed (Paras 14 to 20)
        CBI Investigation-Scope and ambit of -For directing the CBI to hold the investigation the court must be satisfied that the opposite parties are very powerful and influential persons or the State authorities like top police officials are involved and the investigation has not proceeded with in proper direction or it has been biased-Held inexplicable under what circumstances such a petty incident was considered by High Court to be a fit case to be referred to CBI for investigation-Instantly grievance of the writ petitioners basically had been against two Constables and one Head Constable- It was not a case where it could be held that State authorities were interested or involved in incident-Hence, it was not a fit case where investigation could be handed over to the CBI (Paras 12, 13)
       Facts of the Case :
        Present Appeals have been filed against judgment passed by High Court by which it quashed criminal case registered against respondent nos. 3 and 4 and directed ‘CBI’ to investigate case in respect of allegations made by said respondents against appellant nos. 2 to 4; and awarded a compensation of Rs.25,000/- each to the said respondents for wrongful confinement.
       Findings of the Court :
        Case had been registered against respondents u/ss. 107/151 of Cr.pc.herein in the instant case. The status report showed that writ petitioners had been under the influence of alcohol and had been abusing, threatening and quarrelling each other at the public place. Magistrate had passed release order of said respondents. However, they could not be released because they failed to furnish the personal bond with a surety in the like amount. High Court reached the conclusion that said respondents had been kept behind the bar for one day resulting into violation of their fundamental rights, without realising that since they failed to furnish bonds, no other option was available and they were sent to judicial custody in view of the order of the Magistrate. High Court erred in awarding even token compensation to the tune of Rs.25,000/- each as High Court did not hold any enquiry and passed the order merely after considering status report submitted by appellant no.1 without hearing any of the persons against whom allegations of abuse of power had been made. Impugned judgment and order was set aside except to the extent that proceedings under Sections 107/151 Cr.P.C. against contesting respondents stood quashed. Appeals were allowed.

JUDGMENT

Dr. B.S. Chauhan, J.

1. Leave granted in both the matters.

2. These appeals have been preferred against the same judgment and order dated 25.2.2008 passed by the High Court of Delhi in Writ Petition (Crl.) No.264 of 2007 by which the High Court has quashed the criminal case registered against respondent nos. 3 and 4; directed Central Bureau of Investigation (hereinafter called ‘CBI’) to investigate the case in respect of the allegations made by the said respondents against the appellant nos. 2 to 4; and awarded a compensation of Rs.25,000/- each to the said respondents for wrongful confinement.

3. FACTS:

A. On 3.2.2007, Constable Virender Kumar, Head Constable Krishan Singh and Constable Jai Kumar, appellant nos. 2 to 4 respectively while patrolling in the area found that Sanjeev Kumar Singh and Dalip Gupta, respondent nos.3 and 4 respectively were fighting with each other in an intoxicated condition. The said appellants tried to pacify them but in vein. After realising that they were in drunken condition the aforesaid appellants took both the said respondents to the hospital for medical examination wherein they misbehaved with the Doctor and other staff of the hospital. After medical examination, it was opined that both the said respondents had taken alcohol.

B. The said respondents were booked under Sections 107/151 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter called ‘Cr.P.C.’) and were produced before the Special Executive Magistrate (hereinafter called ‘the Magistrate’) on 4.2.2007. The Magistrate issued show cause notice as to why they should not be ordered to execute personal bond of Rs.5,000/- each with a surety in the like amount for maintaining peace for a period of one year. The said respondents could not furnish the bonds and thus, the Magistrate sent both of them to judicial custody. The said respondents furnished the bond of Rs.15,000/- each on the next day, i.e., 5.2.2007 and were released.

C. The said respondents filed Criminal Writ Petition No.264 of 2007 on 19.2.2007 before the High Court of Delhi praying mainly for quashing of the proceedings under Sections 107/151 Cr.P.C. and further asked to initiate criminal proceedings against the appellant nos.2 to 4 and award them compensation for illegal detention. The writ petition came for hearing on 26.2.2007. The standing counsel appearing for the State took notice on behalf of all the respondents in the writ petition. The High Court directed the police authorities to submit the status report. The appellant no.1 after making an inquiry in the case submitted the status report on 10.7.2007. The petition was heard on 31.10.2007 and has been allowed vide judgment and order dated 25.2.2008. Hence, these appeals.

4. Shri P.P. Malhotra, learned Additional Solicitor General appearing for the State of NCT Delhi and Shri Pradeep Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the appellants, have submitted that both the said respondents had been under the influence of liquor and were fighting with each other at a public place, thus, there was danger of breach of peace and tranquillity. Appellant nos.2 to 4 tried to pacify them but the said respondents did not pay any heed. They had been booked under Sections 107/151 Cr.P.C. and produced before the Magistrate on the next day. The Magistrate after completing legal formalities directed that they may be released on furnishing the bonds to the tune of Rs.5,000/- each with a surety in the like amount. The said respondents were not in a position to submit the bail bonds on the said date and thus, could not be released on 4.2.2007. However, on the next day, they submitted the bail bonds voluntarily for a sum of Rs.15,000/- each, and thus, they were released. Factual averments made in the writ petition were totally false.

Appellants had not been served personal notices and had no opportunity to defend themselves. The order impugned has been passed in flagrant violation of the principle of natural justice. Such a petty matter

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2011 Supreme(SC) 771

Cases Referred (14)