Delhi High Court
Kiran Bedi vs N.C.T. Of Delhi And Anr. on 22 November, 2000
Author: R Sodhi
Bench: R Sodhi
JUDGMENT
R.S. Sodhi, J.
1. Admit.
2. This Criminal Miscellaneous (Main) is directed against the order dated 22.3.1991 of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate whereby the learned Magistrate has issued summons to the petitioner under Sections 323/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner as also learned counsel for respondent No. 2. It is the case of the petitioner before me that upon a bare reading of the complaint it is evident that the petitioner herein, who was DCP (North) at the relevant time, ordered carne charge while acting in the discharge of her official duties and, therefore, no cognizance of any offence pursuant to that action can be taken without sanction.
4. The case of the complainant on the other hand is that the DCP (North) violated all legal norms while ordering cane charge, and, therefore, her action cannot be termed as that covered under the discharge of her official duty. The question that has arisen before me, at this juncture, is whether the learned Metropolitan Magistrate was right in taking cognizance on the complaint without sanction having been accorded under Section 132 read with Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and Section 140 of the Delhi Police Act, 1978.
5. The facts of this case are that on 21.1.1988 the DCP (North) apprehended bread of peace and, therefore, had summoned a large contingents of the police force to order to deal with the situation which has developed on account of large number is the Advocates who had assembled for the purpose of dharana outside the office of the DCP (North) and had, pursuant to that object, encircled the office immobilising the working of the DCP (North).
6. It appears that the DCP (North) found it expedient, while dealing with the situation, to order cane charge to disburse the crowd. It is this decision which, according to the complainant, is lawless as it has been done in violation of the provisions of law The complainant, therefore, filed a complaint before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate praying that action be taken under Sections 201, 202, 307, 323, 324, 308, 506, 147, 149, 120-B etc. of the Indian Penal Code. The learned Magistrate, upon examining the complaint, was pleased to take cognizance thereof under Sections 323/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code and issued summons vide his order dated 22.3.1991. The learned Magistrate noted in his order that the complainant has urged before him that he has applied for sanction for prosecution but the same is not necessary as the acts of the petitioner herein are not connected with the discharge of official duty. Consequently, the learned Magistrate held that he was of the view that the complainant could prosecute the accused person without the sanction under Section 19 of the Criminal Procedure Code as there does not appear to be a reasonable nexus between the commission of the alleged offence and the official duties of the accused Being aggrieved of this order, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of the instant petition stating therein that the learned Metropolitan Magistrate could not have taken cognizance in view of the provisions of Sections 197 and 132 of the Criminal Procedure Code as also Section 140 of the Delhi Police Act.
7. With the assistance of learned counsel for the parties I have gone through the record of the case and have given my careful consideration to the order under challenge. The order taking cognizance cannot be made by waring blinkers but must be taken on the basis of the totality of the material before the Court. In this case, it cannot be said that the assembly of lawyers that had gheraod the office of the DCP (North) were not obstructing her from discharge of her official duties. It was in the course of duty that the DCP (North) summoned additional force and then, to disburse the crowd, ordered the cane charge. Even if during this process the DCP (North) had mis-judged the situation or had violated any provision of the law and did not give sufficient warning to the people, assembled, as aforesaid, it cannot be said that the DCP (North) was taking action not in discharge of her official duties. There is a direct nexus between the action taken the duty impose on the official. The complaint cannot be read in vacuum. I am, therefore, of the considered opinion that in the facts and circumstances of this case, cognizance could not have been taken in view of the bar under Sections 132 and 197 of the Criminal procedure Code and Section 140 of the Delhi Police Act.
8. In view of the discussion above, I quash the impugned order dated 223 1991 of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate in so far as it concerns the petitioner. With this observation, Criminal Mise. (Main) 672 of 1995 is allowed.
