( 1 ) DEFENDANT no. 2 has filed this application under order VII Rule 11 (d) of the Code of Civil Procedure (in short cpc ) and Section 114 of the Delhi Police Act for rejection of the plaint. Before setting up the grounds on which the applicant wants plaint to be rejected under the aforesaid provisions, it would be necessary to take note of the averments made in the plaint on the basis of which, claimed raised therein is founded.

( 2 ) THE plaintiff is a non-resident Indian settled in England since 1974. He has filed this suit for compensation/recovery of damages to the tune of Rs. 1. 50 crores with interest @ 12% per annum for his malicious prosecution. It is alleged that the plaintiff boarded the flight of Lufthansa Airlines from Heathrow Airport, london on 23rd June 1999 for New Delhi. At that time he was working/employed with the British Railways, i. e. Thames Trains, London, UK. After boarding the said flight, he landed at Indira Gandhi International Airport in the intervening night of 23rd/24th June 1999. On his arrival, his relative from Punjab, namely, Sukhmander singh came to receive him at the airport. He was to go back to London on 3rd July 1999 and for this he was carrying return ticket from Delhi to London. When he came out and hired a taxi for going to Chandini Chowk gurudwara for darshan, the time was 1. 45 a. m. The taxi was intercepted by the police officials in plain clothes at the exit of the airport itself by putting a barricade. He was dealt with inhumanly and his belonging were searched. The police personnel took him away to Lodhi colony Special Staff where defendants no. 3 to 7 were posted. None of his family members were informed. No arrest was shown either. When he did not reach home, his relations got worried and reported the matter to various authorities. After keeping him in illegal detention from early morning of 24th June 1999, ultimately case was registered against him on 29th June 1999 when formal arrest was shown under Sections 3, 4 and 5 of the explosive Substances Act read with Section 120 (b) of the indian Penal Code by planting RDX upon the plaintiff and his relations. He was produced before the Magistrate, tis Hazari Court, Delhi, on 30th June 1999 and was remanded to custody charges were framed and he was put to trial. Ultimately he was acquitted by the trial court vide judgment dated 27th March 2002. Since no interim bail was granted to the plaintiff, he remained in jail during this period of trial. On the basis of these averments, brief note whereof is taken, he states that the prosecution launched against him was malicious and, therefore, he has prayed for damages for Rs. 1. 50 crores with interest as aforesaid.

( 3 ) DEFENDANT no. 2, i. e. Union of India wants rejection of this plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. In the application filed in this behalf the provisions of section 140 of the Delhi Police Act are pressed into service. Section 140 of the Delhi Police Act reads as under:-

BAR to suits and prosecution:- (I) In any case of alleged offence by a police officer or other persons, or of a wrong alleged to have been done by such police officer or other person, by any act done under colour of duty or authority or in excess of any such duty or authority, or wherein it shall appear to the court that the offence or wrong if committed or done was of the character aforesaid, the prosecution or suit shall not be entertained and if entertained shall be dismissed if it is instituted, more than three months after the date of the act complained of. Provided that any such prosecution against a police officer or other person may be entertained by the court, if instituted with the previous sanction of the administrator, within one year from the date of the offence. . . . .

( 4 ) SUBMISSION is that suit or prosecution could be filed, as per sub-section (1) of Section 140 within three months from the date of the act complained of. As per proviso to sub-section (1), beyond three mo