Inspector Samay Singh & Anr. vs Joginder Singh Yadav
2013 Latest Caselaw 1641 Del

*     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                             RESERVED ON : 8th FEBRUARY, 2013
                             DECIDED ON : 10th APRIL, 2013

+     CRL.M.C.720/2011 & CRL.M.A.Nos.19440/2011 & 2784/2011

      INSPECTOR SAMAY SINGH & ANR.         ....Petitioners
               Through : Mr.Manoj Sharma, Advocate with
                         Mr.Kapil Kaushik, Advocate.

                               versus

      JOGINDER SINGH YADAV                  ....Respondent
               Through : Mr.Ratnesh Bansal, Advocate.

       CORAM:
       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG

S.P.GARG, J.

1. The present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been

preferred by the petitioners for quashing of order dated 22.02.2010 in

Criminal Complaint (CC) No.360/2001 by which they were summoned

for committing offences punishable under Sections 342/365/34 IPC.

2. Complaint case under Sections 340/342/365/442/448/506/34

IPC was filed by Joginder Singh Yadav against Devender, Rajender,

Insp.Samay Singh and Const.Sunil alleging that on 25.11.2003, they came

in Indica car bearing No. DL 3CV 2652; entered his office and threatened

him to implicate in a false case by planting 'katta' on him. They forcibly

dragged him into the car and took him to Police Station Prashant Vihar,

New Delhi. He was threatened to pay `50,000/- or else he would be

implicated in a case under Arms Act. He examined himself besides

producing five witnesses. CW-5 (Gulshan Arora) exhibited details of

incoming and outgoing calls from 24.11.2003 to 26.11.2003 on phone

No.9811226899. CW-6 (Capt. Rakesh Bakshi) brought the record

pertaining to phone No.9810587321 for the period from 24.11.2003 to

26.11.2003. Vide order dated 09.06.2006, learned Metropolitan

Magistrate dismissed the complaint case. Complainant- Joginder Singh

Yadav challenged the order in Criminal Revision No. 129/2006. By an

order dated 04.12.2007, the learned Additional Sessions Judge (for short

ASJ) allowed the revision petition and set aside the order. Case was

remanded to the Trial Court to decide afresh on the point of summoning.

After remand, learned ACMM vide impugned order dated 22.02.2010

summoned the petitioners only for offences under Sections 342/365/34

IPC. Complaint case against Devender and Rajender was dismissed. The

petitioners filed Revision Petition Nos.50/2010 & 65/2010. However, the

revision petitions were dismissed by learned ASJ by an order dated

28.02.2011. Being aggrieved, the petitioners have preferred the petition.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners urged that the impugned

summoning order cannot be sustained as the petitioners in discharge of

their official duties had conducted the raid. They were having reasonable

information that the complainant was engaged in the supply of country-

made fire arms in Delhi from U.P. The said information was conveyed by

petitioner No.1 to ACP, Anti Homicide Unit, and on his instruction, raid

was conducted. Daily Diary (DD) No. 6 dated 25.11.2003 was recorded at

Anti Homicide Section, Crime Branch, Prashant Vihar, Delhi. Search at

the shop of the complainant was conducted. However, nothing

incriminating was recovered. The complainant and Yogesh Kumar were

brought by the raiding party at Crime Branch Office at Prashant Vihar for

further interrogation/ enquiry. They both were let off at 06.00 P.M. for

which DD No.7 was recorded. The complainant himself entered a written

information dated 25.11.2003 at PS Vasant Kunj in this regard. There was

no mala fide on the part of the petitioners. The Trial Court was not

empowered to take cognizance of the offence without prior approval of

sanction by a competent authority under Section 197 Cr.P.C. read with

Section 140 of Delhi Police Act. Yogesh was not examined by the

complainant and he did not lodge any such complaint.

4. Learned counsel for the respondent contended that there was

no occasion for the petitioners to abduct the complainant and take him to

Crime Branch, Prashant Vihar when nothing incriminating was recovered

at his shop. The complainant was illegally detained at Crime Branch

Office and was threatened to pay a sum of ` 50,000/-. The complainant

is a permanent resident of Delhi. Allegations levelled by the petitioners

cannot be considered in the present petition and all these facts require

scrutiny during Trial.

5. It is not disputed that on 25.11.2003 a raid was conducted by

the officers/ officials of Anti Homicide Section, Crime Branch, Prashant

Vihar, Delhi. DD No.6 dated 25.11.2003 was recorded at 12.00 Noon by

Insp. Samay Singh and it was mentioned that on getting information from

Const.Sunil that one Joginder Singh Yadav was engaged in supply of

country-made pistol in Delhi from UP, he informed ACP, Anti Homicide

Section who directed him to conduct raid. He with SI Anand Singh, ASI

Bijender Singh, Const.Sunil and Const. Narender departed to the place of

information at village Kishangarh, Vasant Kunj. The search was

conducted in the presence of the complainant and his relative Yogesh.

However, nothing incriminating was found. Thereafter, both complainant

and Yogesh were brought to Police Station, Prashant Vihar. Petitioners'

case is that they brought complainant and Yogesh at Police Station

Prashant Vihar to make further enquiry at about 03.00 P.M. and were let

off at 06.00 P.M. Daily Diary (DD) No.7 dated 25.11.2003 was recorded

by Insp.Samay Singh at 06.00 P.M. It was also mentioned therein that

after the enquiries both were relieved. The proceedings conducted were

brought to the notice of the ACP, Anti Homicide Section, Crime Branch.

The petitioners have also placed on record letter written to the SHO,

Police Station Vasant Kunj by the complainant whereby he informed that

four persons of Crime Branch had taken him to Police Station Prashant

Vihar in their vehicle and after enquiry, he was relieved. He had no

complaint against anybody and did not want any action. The complainant

has not denied this information given to the SHO, Vasant Kunj. The

complainant was not implicated in any case. No illegal payment was

received from him or his relatives for his release. On 16.03.2004, after

inordinate delay of about five months, the complainant filed a complaint

case not only against the petitioners but also against private persons

Devender and Rajender alleging abduction, confinement and threats etc.

Devender and Rajender were discharged. Only the petitioners were

summoned for committing offence under Section 342/365/34 IPC. In my

considered view, there was no sufficient material before the learned

ACMM to arrive at a prima facie view that the complainant was abducted

or confined illegally by the petitioners. Yogesh did not file any complaint

for alleged abduction or illegal confinement. He was not even examined

as a witness. The petitioners had conducted raid with other members of

the raiding parties who were not arrayed as accused. The petitioners had

made necessary entries in the official record about their departure and

arrival and the purpose of their raid. They had reasonable information

about the complainant to be in the possession of illegal weapons and for

the said purpose had conducted raid. They had brought the complainant at

their office for further enquiry/investigation and released him after some

time. All these facts were in the knowledge of the Superior Officers of the

petitioners. The Trial Court did not find any material to prima facie view

that any illegal demand was raised for the release of the complainant. The

complainant was not taken to any undisclosed place. The complainant was

aware that the persons who had taken him to the office of Crime Branch

were police officials as in the complaint there is mention that identity

cards were shown by the petitioners to him at the time of search. It was

not unusual for the petitioners to interrogate the complainant as nothing

incriminating was found pursuant to the secret information received.

When they did not find anything material in the interrogation, the

complainant was discharged / released. Apparently, the proceedings were

conducted by the petitioners in the discharge of their official duties. No

sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C. was obtained to proceed against the

petitioners who were public servants and who acted or purported to act in

the discharge of their duties. The raid/search at the complainant's office is

not tainted. Subsequent interrogation of the complainant in the office to

extract information is directly connected with their official duties and it

was done in its discharge. There is nothing on record to infer that the

petitioners acted in excess of their duties. There is a reasonable connection

between the act and the performance of the official duty and there is no

sufficient ground to deprive the petitioners of the protection under Section

197 Cr.P.C. It is relevant to note that initially ACP R.P.Meena had

submitted enquiry report dated 06.06.2006 before the learned

Metropolitan Magistrate in which allegations levelled by the complainant

with regard to kidnapping, demand of money and false implication were

not substantiated. The senior officers of the petitioners had no grievance

against the conduct of the petitioners in conducting raid to recover

weapons and to make enquiries from them at the office. All these

developments were in their knowledge.

6. In the light of above discussion, the impugned order dated

22.02.2010 summoning the petitioners for committing offences under

Sections 342/365/34 IPC cannot be sustained and is set aside. The petition

is allowed. Criminal Complaint (CC) No.360/2001 and the proceedings

emanating from it are quashed.

7. Pending applications also stand disposed of being

infructuous.

(S.P.GARG) JUDGE APRIL 10, 2013 tr