JUDGMENT

Manmohan Singh, J. By way of this order I propose to decide two applications; one being I.A. No. 3401/2013 and another being I.A. No. 12048/2013 both under Order 1 Rule 10 read with Section 151 CPC filed by the defendant No.6 (Ranjit Narayan) and defendant No.5 (R.S. Yadav) respectively for rejection of the name of defendant No.5 and defendant No.6 from the array of parties.

2. By the application being I.A. No. 3401/2013 filed by the defendant No.6 it was stated that defendant No.6 was posted as Special Commissioner (Crime), Delhi Police and is neither a proper nor a necessary party and his presence in the array of parties as defendant No.6 was not justified. The allegations made against the defendant No.6 in the plaint does not make out any cause of action against defendant No.6. The basis of the plaint is acts stated to be done in discharge of duty by defendant No.6 which cannot be the basis of claiming damages or maintaining the suit as against the defendant No.6.

3. It is stated that as per Section 140 of Delhi Police Act, 1978 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") which imposes certain restrictions and limitations in the matter of institution of suits and prosecutions against police officers in respect of acts done by a police officer under colour of duty or authority or in excess of such duty or authority. One such restriction is that such suit or prosecution 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. It is further stated that there has been no compliance of Section 140 of the Act without which the present suit is barred in law.

4. The plaintiff in his reply has denied the contentions of the defendant No. 6 and stated that defendant No.6 was responsible for scuttling the transparent proceedings of the CAW cell on the basis of defendant No.1's false complaint dated 22nd April, 2003 where the untruth in defendant No.1's complaint dated 6th March, 2003 was being exposed in view of the legal documentary evidence which was submitted to the CAW cell on 24th March, 2003 by the parents of the plaintiff. Defendant No.1 wrote two letters dated 8th January, 2003 and 6th March, 2003 in reply to the legal notice dated 20th December, 2012 which showed deliberate abuse of authority by defendant No.6 as any Senior officer receiving a complaint against a junior official would be expected to get the matter investigated thoroughly.

5. It is stated that the defendant No.6 was responsible for deliberately registering FIR against the innocent plaintiff and his family without even checking the authenticity of defendant No.1's complaint dated 22nd April, 2003 only because she was the sister of a colleague I.P.S officer. It is stated that no notice or summons were sent to the plaintiff by the police in Canada which required his presence in the CAW cell. On the basis of false FIR because of abuse of authority on the part of the defendant No. 6, the other defendants were able to proceed by opening illegal LOC(s) against the plaintiff and his family members and then issued a series of illegal RCN(s) which confined him in Canada for 7 years. This Court vide order dated 11th August, 2010 held that the LOC(s) and RCN(s) were issued by police officers who were not even authorised to issue them.

6. It is further stated that defendant No. 6 attempted to mislead this Court by splitting the para Nos. 6xxi into two portions and eliminating the relevant portion which directly indicts him in thwarting the proceedings of CAW cell midstream, at the behest of defendant No.1, by ensuring the speedy registration of the FIR merely on the basis of a false report.

7. It is averred that Section 140 of the Act does not apply to illegal acts done by the police officials. It is also stated in the application that defendant No.6 is necessary party for the purpose of disposal of the suit. The prayer is made for dismissal of the application.

8. Th