Delhi High Court
Ravi Gulati vs Sat Pal Singh on 16 May, 2011
Author: V.K.Shali
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL. M.C. 1449/2004 & Crl.M.C. 2859/2007
Date of Decision : 16.05.2011
Crl.M.C.No.1449/2004
RAVI GULATI ...... Petitioner
Through: Petitioner in person.
Versus
HARI PARKASH ...... Respondent
Through: Mr. Ajay Baury, Adv.
Crl.M.C.No.2859/2007
RAVI GULATI ...... Petitioner
Through: Petitioner in person.
Versus
SAT PAL SINGH ...... Respondent
Through: Mr. Ajay Baury, Adv.
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. SHALI
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be
allowed to see the judgment? YES
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not ? YES
3. Whether the judgment should be reported
in the Digest ? YES
V.K. SHALI, J. (Oral)
1. This order shall dispose of two petitions bearing
Crl.M.C.No.1449/2004 and Crl.M.C.No.2859/2007. Both
these petitions are arising from the same facts although
from different orders.
2. In Crl.M.C.No.1449/2004, the petitioner, Sh.Ravi Gulati
has challenged the order dated 10.2.2004 passed by
Sh.Deepak Jagotra, the learned ASJ, Delhi allowing Crl.
R.P.No.80/2003 filed by the respondent, Sh.Hari Parkash
against the order dated 17.10.2000 passed by the Court of
Sh.Sanjeev, the learned MM, Delhi dismissing the
application under Section 140 of Delhi Police Act read with
Section 197 Cr.P.C. in a complaint case filed by the present
petitioner.
3. In Crl.M.C.No.2859/2007, the petitioner, Sh. Ravi Gulati
has challenged the order dated 24.5.2007 passed by
Sh.Rajiv Mehra, learned ASJ, Delhi allowing the Crl.Rev.
P.no.12/2007 filed by the respondent Sh.Satpal Singh and
consequently upholding his plea that the complaint filed by
the present petitioner bearing no.43/2001 titled Ravi
Gulati Vs. Gyanender Kumar & Ors. against the
respondent could not be taken forward on the ground of
want of sanction under Section 197 Cr. P.C. and Section
140 of D.P. Act.
4. In order to appreciate the issue, it would be pertinent here
to give the brief facts of the case.
5. The petitioner, Ravi Gulati was allegedly running a Dhaba
at UP Roadways Ajmeri Gate, Delhi bearing Stall No. 1 and
it was alleged by him that on 28.9.94, two persons came to
his dhaba on a scooter and after taking meals, beat him up
when he demanded money from them. The said persons
were alleged to be police officials who had not only beaten
the petitioner but also registered a false Kalandra under
Section 93/97 of the Delhi Police Act against the petitioner.
6. The petitioner alleged that as a consequence of registration
of the said Kalandra, he was taken to the police station by
S.I. Satpal Singh and one Constable who were posted at
PCR at that time and they had reached the spot after
getting the initial information of the quarrel at Dhaba,
where he was beaten up by SI Satpal Singh and ASI Hari
Parkash with Dandas and was then locked up in the lock
up.
7. The petitioner feeling aggrieved by the said behaviour of SI
Satpal Singh and ASI Hari Parkash, lodged a private
complaint, under Section 160/302/506/34 IPC against the
officials which included Satpal Singh as well as ASI Hari
Parkash.
8. SI Satpal Singh & ASI Hari Parkash filed an application
under Section 140 of the Delhi Police Act read with Section
197 Cr. P.c. and brought to the notice of the learned
Magistrate that since the alleged offence is purported to
have been committed by them in the official discharge of
their duties, therefore, appropriate sanction both under
Section 140 of Delhi Police Act and under Section 197 of
Cr.P.C. ought to have been obtained by the present
petitioner and since this was not done, the proceedings
against them be dropped. The application of Hari Praksh as
well as SI Satpal were dismissed on the same lines on two
different dates. Sh. Hari Prakash preferred a revision
petition bearing no.80/2003 raising the same plea before
the learned Additional Sessions Judge. The said Revision
came to be decided by Sh.Deepak Jagotra , learned ASJ,
Delhi. The learned Sessions Judge has referred to Section
197 Cr.P.C. and observed that in terms of the said Section,
the respondent namely Hari Prakash being a public servant
removable from the office either by the Union Government
or the State Government and the purported offence having
been committed by him while acting in the official discharge
of his duties warrants obtaining of sanction under Section
197 Cr.P.C. and since the said sanction had not been
obtained, therefore, the present proceedings could not be
continued.
9. In addition to the lack of sanction the learned ASJ also
commented on the medical report of the present petitioner
and observed that the nature of injuries purported to have
been received by the present petitioner on account of
alleged beatings and man-handling at the police station did
not match with the injuries purported to be recorded in the
medical certificate.
10. Because of these two reasons, the learned Sessions Judge
allowed the revision petition and stated that the
continuance of the proceedings against Hari Prakash stands
terminated and he was discharged.
11. So far as SI Satpal Singh is concerned, he filed a separate
revision petition bearing no.12/2007 raising the same plea
which was raised by ASI Hari Prakash. The learned
Sessions Judge Sh.R.Mehra, dealt with the plea raised by
the respondent Satpal Singh by observing that so far as
Satpal's case is concerned, it is not different from that of
ASI Hari Prakash and since in Hari Prakash's case, the
learned Sessions Court has come to the conclusion that he
deserves to be discharged on account of contradiction in the
medical report of the injuries purported to have been
received by the petitioner apart from the sanction, the case
of SI Satpal could not be dealt with differently and
accordingly, he was also discharged.
12. The first order in case of Sh. Hari Prakash was passed on
10.2.2004 while as in the case of Satpal, the order was
passed on 24.5.2007.
13. The present petitioner Sh. Ravi Gulati feeling aggrieved by
these two orders has preferred two separate criminal cases
bearing no. Crl. M. C. 1449/2004 and Crl. M. C.
2559/2007 under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and urged that the
order of the learned Sessions Judge in both the cases are
not sustainable.
14. The petitioner was present in person and was asked to get
his counsel. Firstly, he took a pass over. In the second
call, the learned counsel for the petitioner still could not
come and therefore, he asked for a date. The request of the
petitioner for grant of a date was not acceded to on account
of the fact that the matter has been pending in Court since
2004 and it has been adjourned repeatedly for one reason
or the other.
15. The Court was constrained to go through the record and
take the assistance of the learned APP.
16. I have heard the petitioner and have gone through the
impugned orders.
17. The legal position under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is no more a
subject matter of res integra. Section 482 Cr.P.C. reads as
under:-
"482 Cr.P.C. Saving of inherent powers of High
Court--Nothing in this Code shall be deemed to
limit or affect the inherent powers of the High Court
to make such orders as may be necessary to give
effect to any order under this Code, or to prevent
abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to
secure the ends of justice."
18. There are several authorities explaining the purpose of
Section 482 Cr.P.C. It has been laid down in a case titled
Kavita Vs. State 2000 Crl. L.J. 315 by our own High Court
that the powers of High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
are extra ordinary powers and have to be exercised or
should not be resorted to like remedy of the appeal or the
revision.
19. In a case titled Manik Vs. State of UP 2008 (8) 1 SCC 781,
the Supreme Court has also observed that the power has to
be exercised carefully with caution and only in such cases,
where the Court wants to prevent any abuse of the
processes of any Court or wants to secure the ends of
justice.
20. In the instant case, I do not find any impropriety,
incorrectness or illegality in the orders passed by the two
learned Sessions Judge, who by separate revision petitions
allowed the criminal revisions filed by the respective
petitioners who happen to be the respondents herein on the
ground that the prosecution against them for having caused
injuries or wrongful confinement cannot continue because
these acts allegedly and purportedly have been done by
them in the official discharge of their duties and therefore,
requirement of obtaining a sanction under Section 197
Cr.P.C. as well as under Section 140 of the Delhi Police Act
has to be fulfilled. The purpose of obtaining sanction is
only to insulate the public servant against the frivolous
litigation or frivolous cases which a cantankerous party
may initiate against them. Admittedly, in the instant case,
the petitioner was booked for creating a nuisance under
Section 93-97 of the Delhi Police Act which carries a
maximum punishment of fine of Rs.100/- in default of
which imprisonment of up to 8 days and that too for an
incident which has taken place in the year 1994.
21. I do not completely disbelieve that the petitioner who is
running a dhaba that he may not have been subjected to
the false registration of a Kalandra on the money having
been demanded. But the question today after lapse of
almost 17 years is, whether it is worthwhile to consider as
to whether the issue of Kalandra and the consequent
counter blast of a case of criminal complaint which has
resulted in passing of two orders by the two learned Session
Judges separately should be a subject matter of
interference by the High Court in exercise of its powers
under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The answer to this question in
my opinion must necessarily be in negative. This is on
account of two reasons, firstly, so far as the Kalandra is
concerned, that is too trivial of an offence for which
admittedly either the petitioner must have been let off or he
must have paid the fine.
22. So far as the counter blast of initiation of a complaint by
the present petitioner against the two present respondents
are concerned, it necessarily must have been actuated on
account of the motive to settle the score with the police
officials who had registered a Kalandra against him.
23. The allegations against the respondents herein are that they
had exceeded their exercise of power inasmuch as they had
subjected the petitioner to violence by beating him and
confining him to lock up. If that be so, necessarily the
petitioner ought to have obtained sanction from the
competent authority in continuing the proceedings,
otherwise, the police officials will have no sense of security
and will be open to the frivolous complaint and thus it
would act as a deterrent in discharge of their duties.
24. Be that as it may, once the learned Sessions Judge has
taken a view on the matter regarding the absence of
sanction and its consequence, it is not open to the
petitioner to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under
Section 482 Cr.P.C. and persuade this Court to substitute
its own view in place of the view of the learned Sessions
Judge. This time of the High Court which has been wasted
by the petitioner could have been very well spent on some
more important matters where the accused persons are
languishing in jail.
25. The ends of justice would be better served if the valuable time
of the Court is spent in hearing the appeals rather than
entertaining the petitions under Section 482 Cr.P.C. at an
interlocutory stage which are filed with a motive to prolong
the proceedings or to delay the trial which ultimately, leads
to the miscarriage of justice. The fact of the matter remains
that the valuable time of the Court ought to be spent on the
matters which merit consideration of its valuable time
rather than on the matters where the parties are trying to
settle the score with each other.
26. For the reasons mentioned above, I do not find that there is
any abuse of the processes of law or any order needs to be
passed to the contrary in the interest of justice.
27. For these reasons, I dismiss both the petitions under
Section 482 Cr.P.C.
V.K. SHALI, J.
MAY 16, 2011
RN
