Official misconduct during arrest does not fall within the color of duty, allowing defamation claims without prior sanction under the Delhi Police Act.

JUDGMENT

1. This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,1973 (Cr.P.C) is directed against order dated 09.10.2014 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-04, South-West Dwarka, New Delhi in Crl. Revision No. 16/2014, whereby, the revision petition preferred by the respondent against the order of issuance of summon dated 31.05.2013 had been allowed.

2. The facts of the case show that on 28.06.2007, a raid was conducted regarding theft of electricity at the house near Pole No. SNFXP-0095, Anand Vihar, Main Road, Najafgarh, New Delhi and a complaint case bearing No. 686/08 came to be registered against one Rajender and two others. During the pendency of the complaint, accused Rajender was declared as proclaimed offender without having his parentage and residential address. On 06.08.2010, the petitioner was arrested by the respondent. After the petitioner was produced before the concerned court, he was enlarged on bail. After completion of the prosecution evidence, the concerned court vide judgment dated 12.09.2011 acquitted the petitioner from all the offences alleged against him. The two other accused persons, namely, Pappu S/o Pratap Singh and Niranjan Dhiman were also acquitted.

3. On 26.03.2012, the petitioner filed a complaint case against the respondent and two other persons, namely, C.S. Sakkarwal (Divisional Chief) and A.P. Ram (DGM Business) for offences punishable under Section 200 C.r.P.C. read with Sections 500/323/341/506/34 IPC. It is alleged that the respondent defamed the petitioner in front of the people of the locality. An allegation of taking away a sum of Rs.15,000/- forcibly was also made. After recording the pre-summoning evidence, vide order dated 31.05.2013, the learned trial court directed for issuance of summons to all the three accused for facing trial for the offence of defamation (under Section 500 IPC).

4. Being aggrieved by the said order of issuance of summons, the respondent preferred revision before the court of Additional Sessions Judge, which was registered as Crl. Revision No. 16/2014 and vide impugned order dated 09.10.2014, the Revisional Court set aside the summoning order dated 31.05.2013 mainly on the ground that sanction under Section 140 of the Delhi Police Act, 1978 (the DP Act) was not obtained. The petitioner being aggrieved by the said order preferred the instant proceedings under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.

5. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the the petitioner submits that the Revisional Court has erred in exercising its powers under Section 397 of the Cr.P.C. in setting aside the order of summoning on the ground of lack of sanction under Section 140 of the DP Act. According to him, the offence alleged does not fall within the scope and ambit of discharge of "official duty" and therefore, the Revisional Court ought not to have exercised its power under Section 397 of the Cr.P.C. to quash the summoning order. He further submits that if the allegations in the complaint and the evidence produced by the complainant is perused, the same would clearly demonstrate that the petitioner was not named in the complaint, pursuant to which, he was subjected to arrest and secondly, without there being any verification of the correct address, the petitioner was arrested. It has also been stated that respondent misbehaved, man-handled and also abu