Surender vs Commissioner And Secretary Nct ...
2005 Latest Caselaw 1284 Del

JUDGMENT

R.S. Sodhi, J.

CRL.M.A.7767/2005:

1. Delay condoned. Application disposed of.

W.P. (CRL) 1294/2004 and CRL.M.A.7463/2005:

2. This petition has been filed with a prayer to issue directions to respondent no. 1, 2 and 3 not to register a criminal case against the petitioner and with a prayer that compensation be paid to the petitioner for serious injuries caused to him by the official of the State, on the petitioner being shot by him in his back resulting in the petitioner being incapacitated.

3. The facts of the case as narrated in the writ petition are as follows:-

"4. That the petitioner is about 22 years old and is driver by profession.

5. He has been in this avocation for the last more than five years. He has been driving maxi cabs (JEEP) for taking the passengers from one place to another.

6. That on 9.8.2004 the petitioner was driving vehicle No. HR-4-26/7339. The petitioner had started journey from Bahadurgarh at about 8.15 a.m. There was nearly 13 passengers when the petitioner started journey from Bahadurgarh to Nangloi. The passengers got down from the vehicle there at Nangloi busstop at about 9.15 a.m. The petitioner then started from Nangloi and halted the vehicle on the next stop at Najafgarh, Nangloi and parked his maxi cab there.

7. That the petitioner and the conductor were drinking water from a rahri. Then the respondent no. 4 (Anoop Singh, ASI, Traffic Police, Delhi) who was on duty at the Nangloi intersection now the respondent no. 4 in the present writ petition came there an asked the petitioner and other conductor as to why they were standing there. The petitioner replied that he is a maxi cab driver and was taking the passenger to Bahadurgarh.

8. That the respondent no. 4 asked the petitioner why he had not paid the entry fees. The petitioner replied that he would give the entry fees in the evening as it was his first round and he had not sufficient money to pay the entry fees. The responden no. 4 has asked for Rs. 2,000/- as entry fees for the whole month of August, 2004 The petitioner showed his inability and helplessness to make the payment of the amount of Rs. 2000/- as he did not have money in the pocket.

9. That upon this the respondent no. 4 ASI Anoop Singh started abusing the petitioner and threatened him to impound his vehicle and to arrest him. The petitioner after drinking the water started his vehicle for going to Bahadurgarh then the respondent no. 4 started beating the petitioner. The petitioner was reversing his vehicle when the respondent no. 4 gave two fists blow in the stomach of the petitioner. The petitioner could not control the vehicle and the vehicle started back side then the respondent no. 4 was also walking with the vehicle and thought that the petitioner was running away so he took out his service revolver and fired at the petitioner.

10. That the bullet hit the petitioner on his back side and the petitioner became unconscious due to the shot. The conductor ran away from the spot fearing that the respondent no. 4 would also shot him.

11. That the respondent no. 4 after that went to the Nangloi Police Station leaving his motor bike at the spot. Respondent no. 4 also tore away the clothes of the petitioner. The respondent no. 4 then got a case registered against the petitioner in the Plice Station, Nangloi. The police also registered a case against the respondent no. 4. The police from the Police Station, Nangloi came to the spot and took away the petitioner to Sanjay Gandhi Hospital, Mangolpuri, Delhi as the petitioner was lying unconscious.

12. That the police got admitted the petitioner was treated on the hospital and bullet was removed from the body. Respondent no. 4 tried to get the petitioner discharged from the hospital on the same day in the evening. Then the parents of the petitiner went to the police station Nangloi and told the SHO that their son was serious and the doctors were discharging him from the hospital under the pressure of respondent no. 4.

13. That then the SHO sent two constables with the parents of the petitioner in the hospital and then they told the doctor not to discharge the petitioner. This incident appeared in the newspapers on 10.8.2004 and a copy of the news appeared in 'The Dlhi Jagran' is annexure P-1 with the writ petition. Then after the investigation was taken by the Crime Branch.

14. The petitioner was in the hospital and two police officials from the crime branch came in the hospital and recorded the statement of the petitioner. The petitioner told about the incident to the crime branch officials.

15. The petitioner was discharged from the hospital due to the pressure of the respondent no. 4. The petitioner was taken to the police station Nangloi by the parents and brother of the petitioner. The brother of the petitioner went inside the police sation and told the police that the petitioner had come there and was sitting in the car outside the police station. The petitioner was taken to the police station as he was told that a case has been registered against him in the police station Nangloi othe complaint of respondent no. 4. Then the SHO told the brother of the petitioner that there was no case registered against the petitioner and the case was registered against the respondent no. 4. The SHO also told the brother that they should get theetitioner treated from a private doctor. Then the petitioner was taken at home by the parents and brother of the petitioner. The petitioner is still under treatment."

4. It is contended by counsel for the petitioner that serious injuries having been caused by A.S.I. Anoop Singh, in his reckless firing, the petitioner is entitled to be compensated. He also contends that he is also entitled to protection from false prosecution.

5. Counsel for the State, Ms. Mukta Gupta, on the other hand, contends that a cancellation report has been filed before the court of competent jurisdiction being F.I.R. No. 576/2004 under Section 353/186/332, registered at Police Station Nangloi and that this court should not pass any order till the cancellation report is accepted. She also contends that till A.S.I. Anoop Singh is held guilty of the offence, no compensation should be awarded.

6. Heard counsel for the parties and have carefully gone through the allegations made in the writ petition which appear to have been supported by the prosecution already launched against AS.I. Anoop Singh as a result of investigation conducted by the police itself.

7. Prima facie, it is clear that A.S.I. Anoop Singh has caused greivous/serious injury to the petitioner by use of his service revolver, far beyond the call of duty. It is not necessary to wait for the final outcome of the criminal proceedings launched against ASI Anoop Singh, suffice it to say that prima facie a case of extreme high handedness and recklessness has been made out resulting in permanent disablement to the petitioner. The act of the police official cannot be justified by any civilized society.

8. In that view of the matter, I am of the view that an ad-interim, ex-gratia compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/- (rupees two lakhs) should be awarded to the petitioner. This of course leaves the petitioner to alternative remedy of seeking damages which he may, if so advised, take in accordance with law. I order accordingly. The compensation as awarded above may be recovered by the State from the delinquent.

9. In view of the above, W.P.(CRL) 1294/2004 is disposed of. CRL.M.A.7463/2005 also stands disposed of. Any observation made in this order shall not be taken into consideration in the criminal proceedings.