2012 CrLJ 410
Supreme Court of India
P. SATHASIVAM & DR. B.S. CHAUHAN
Ram Mehar Singh
Versus
State of N.C.T. of Delhi & Others
CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS. 1585-1586 OF 2011 (Arising out of SLP(Crl.) Nos. 5998-5999 of 2008) With CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS. 1587-1588 OF 2011 (Arising out of SLP(Crl.) Nos. 6719-6720 of 2008)
Decided on : 12-08-2011
Judgment :
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 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 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 responden
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.