Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
ANU MALHOTRA, J.
Insp Ram Niwas - Petitioner
Versus
Govt. of NCT of Delhi - Respondent
Crl.M.C. No. 1618 of 2019 & Crl.M.A. No. 6478 of 2019
Decided On : 13-02-2020
Delhi Police Act - Non-Bailable Warrants - [NI Act] - [Section 138] - [Summary of Acts and Sections: The judgment discusses the repeated non-compliance of court orders by the petitioner, a former SHO, leading to the issuance of non-bailable warrants. The court emphasizes the duty of law enforcers to comply with court orders and the consequences of non-compliance. The legal provisions of the Delhi Police Act and the duty of the petitioner to provide assistance for the execution of non-bailable warrants are highlighted. The court's decision is influenced by the petitioner's repeated disregard for court orders and the modification of conditions to deposit costs for the cancellation of warrants, considering the petitioner's future career prospects.]
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a former SHO, repeatedly failed to comply with court orders for the execution of non-bailable warrants, leading to the issuance of warrants against him. The court observed the petitioner's non-compliance and disregard for court orders, emphasizing the duty of law enforcers to cooperate with court processes.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner's repeated non-compliance with court orders and disregard for the duty to provide assistance for the execution of non-bailable warrants warranted the issuance of warrants against him. The court also noted the petitioner's failure to seek exemption from appearance and lack of proof for his inability to appear before the court.
Issues: The issues revolved around the petitioner's repeated non-compliance with court orders, failure to provide assistance for the execution of warrants, and lack of proof for his inability to appear before the court.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the duty of law enforcers to comply with court orders and the consequences of non-compliance. It also highlighted the petitioner's duty to provide assistance for the execution of non-bailable warrants and the lack of proof for his inability to appear before the court.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the petitioner's prayer to set aside the order, upholding the decision of the Revisional Court and emphasizing the petitioner's repeated disregard for court orders. The court also considered the petitioner's future career prospects and modified the conditions for depositing costs for the cancellation of warrants.
JUDGMENT :
1. The petitioner vide the present petition assails the impugned order dated 15.03.2019 of the Ld. Special Judge (PC Act) (CBI)-04, Central District Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in Criminal Revision No.122/2019 vide which it was held that there was no infirmity nor illegality in the order dated 19.02.2019 of the Ld. Trial Court of the MM-04 (NI Act), Central, Tis Hazari Court, warranting any interference which order of the Ld. Trial Court was upheld, though the order dated 19.02.2019 of the Ld. Trial Court in CC No.536918/16 to the extent that it allowed the application of the petitioner herein seeking cancellation of non-bailable warrants against him subject to costs of Rs.10,000/- to be deducted by the concerned DCP/ Joint CP having administrative control over the petitioner herein in his present posting with a copy of the said order having been sent to the concerned DCP/ Joint CP with direction to deduct the said cost of Rs.10,000/- from the salary of the petitioner who had flouted the court order and the provisions of the Delhi Police Act, was modified by the Revisional Court vide the impugned order dated 15.03.2019 observing to the effect that the revisionist i.e. the petitioner herein be given a chance to deposit the cost from his own pocket instead of directing the DCP/Joint CP to deduct the same from the salary of the petitioner herein to avoid any adverse impact on his future career prospects and the petitioner herein as the revisionist before the Revisional Court was directed to deposit the costs imposed by the Ld. Trial Court within two weeks from the date 15.03.2019, failing which the DCP/ Joint CP was directed to deduct the costs from the salary of the petitioner and to deposit the same in the Ld. Trial Court. The said costs of Rs.10,000/- are indicated to have been deposited by the petitioner before the Ld. Trial Court vide receipt dated 29.03.2019 in compliance of the directions dated 15.03.2019 of the Revisional Court in CR No.122/2019.
2. The copies of the proceedings in CC No.536918/16 dated 27.11.2017, 23.03.2018, 01.06.2018, 30.06.2018, 29.08.2018 and 05.01.2019 and 19.02.2019 which are to the effect:-
CC No. 536918/16
27.11.2017
Today I am also looking after the work of 3rd Ld. Link M.M.
Case received by way of transfer. It be checked and registered.
Present: Complainant along with Ld. Counsel Ms. Vioma Gaur. NBWs returned unexecuted only on one address pertaining to Sangam Vihar Ghaziabad and no report received regarding the address at Subhash Vihar Delhi. However, the complainant submits that the accused is residing at this address and the report is Collusive. Separate copy of the order be provided to the complainant with direction to the concerned SHO to get the NBWs executed with the help of the complainant who will point out the address and the report is returnable for 23.03,2018 at the address Dabar, Sangam Vihar. Also issue W/attachment of surety for date fixed. PF be filed.
Sd/-
MM-04 (NI Act) Central, Delhi
27.11.2017
CC No. 536918/16
23.03.2018
Ld. PO is on leave today.
Present: Complainant in person
Put up for purpose fixed on 01.06.2018.
Sd/-
Link MM, Central, THC, Delhi
23.03.2018
CC No. 536918/16
01.06.2018
Present: Complainant in person with Counsel.
On 27.11.2017 order was made for arrest of accused on pointing the identity by the complainant. However, Ld. Counsel submits that though the complainant approached the SHO with the copy of the order but assistance was not given.
Issue show cause notice to the SHO to PS Roop Nagar to appear personally as to why action should not be recommended as well as judicial action be also not taken for non compliance of the court order.
List on 30.06.2018. Separate copy of the order be sent to the SHO for his intimation and compliance.
Sd/-
MM.04 (NI Act) Central, THC, Delhi
01.06.2018
CC NO. 536918/16
Abdul Khalik Vs. Mohammad Anwar
30.06.2018
Regular stenographer is on leave today.
Present: Complainant along with Ld. Counsel.
Sh. Rajender Kumar, Inspector (Incharge) at present, PS
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
