Delhi High Court
Sanju @ Tinda vs The State (Govt Of Nct Of Delhi) & ... on 19 January, 2016
33
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 19th January, 2016
W.P.(CRL) 171/2016 & CRL.M.A. 929-930/2016
SANJU @ TINDA ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr R.P.S. Bhatti, Advocate.
versus
THE STATE (GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI) & ANR ..... Respondents
Through Mr Sanjay Lao, Addl. Standing
Counsel (Crl.).
SI Mukesh Meena, PS- Sagarpur.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SIDDHARTH MRIDUL
SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J (ORAL)
1. The present is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking
quashing of order dated 18.11.2015 rendered by the Lieutenant Governor,
Delhi in Case No.196/2015 as well as the order dated 21.09.2015 issued by
the Additional Deputy Commissioner Delhi, South West District, Delhi in
case titled as The State v. Sanju @ Tinda.
2. A perusal of the original order dated 21.09.2015 reveals that Sanju @
Tinda is allegedly engaged in the commission of illegal acts and is found to
be involved, as per the record of Police Station- Sagarpur, in the following
FIRs registered against him:-
S.No. FIR NO./DATE UNDER SECTION POLICE STATION
1. 223/24.03.2006 61/1/14 Excise Act Dabri
2. 618/18.06.2006 61/1/14 Excise Act Dabri
3. 979/25.10.2006 61/1/14 Excise Act Dabri
4. 162/26.02.2007 61/1/14 Excise Act Dabri
5. 361/28.04.2007 61/1/14 Excise Act Dabri
6. 450/29.05.2007 61/1/14 Excise Act Dabri
7. 605/14.07.2007 61/1/14 Excise Act Dabri
8. 835/06.10.2007 61/1/14 Excise Act Dabri
9. 131/12.03.2008 61/1/14 Excise Act Dabri
10. 373/30.06.2008 61/1/14 Excise Act Dabri
11. 566/10.10.2008 61/1/14 Excise Act Dabri
12 02/01.01.2009 61/1/14 Excise Act Dabri
3. A proposal for his externment resulted in legal proceedings against
Sanju @ Tinda initiated by an order dated 29.04.2010. In compliance of
Section 50 of the Delhi Police Act, 1978 (in short 'the Act'), a notice
containing a summary of allegations was furnished to Sanju @ Tinda.
4. Despite repeated opportunities, Sanju @ Tinda failed to submit a reply
to the above mentioned show cause notice and further steadfastly refused to
execute a surety for his appearance before the court. Furthermore, despite
being provided with sufficient opportunities, Sanju @ Tinda did not contact
the Legal Aid Cell, Dwarka for free of cost legal aid and brief a counsel to be
provided by the said Legal Aid Cell.
5. It is noticed that statement of the SHO, Police Station- Sagarpur, was
recorded wherein it was clearly stated that at the time of the proposal for
externment Sanju @ Tinda was involved in at least 12 cases under the Excise
Act. Despite an opportunity in this behalf, Sanju @ Tinda refused to cross-
examine the concerned SHO. It is also observed that Sanju @ Tinda did not
produce a single witness in his defence.
6. Accordingly, by way of order dated 21.09.2015, in exercise of powers
vested under Section 47/50 of the Act, Sanju @ Tinda was directed to
remove himself beyond the limits of the NCT of Delhi for a period of one
year with effect from 28.09.2015.
7. As is evident from the impugned order dated 18.11.2015 passed by the
court of Lieutenant Governor, Delhi, despite externment proceedings
initiated against him, Sanju @ Tinda did not cease and desist from indulging
in criminal cases as is evident from the following cases that have been
registered against him during this period:-
S.No. FIR No. Section Police Final order
of the court
1. 194/2011 33 Delhi Excise Act Sagarpur
Station Acquitted on
26.06.2012
2. 09/2012 33 Delhi Excise Act Sagarpur Acquitted on
07.08.2012
3. 121/2013 33 Delhi Excise Act Sagarpur PT
4. 213/2014 33 Delhi Excise Act Sagarpur PT
8. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of Sanju @ Tinda would urge
that although all the above FIRs have been registered against him he has not
been convicted in any one of these cases and in fact eight cases have been
decided in his favour. On a query from the court qua the details of the cases
in which he has purportedly been acquitted and copies of the judgments and
orders in this behalf, it is admitted that the same are not on record.
9. Counsel for Sanju @ Tinda would then urge that grave hardship is
being caused to Sanju @ Tinda's family in view of the circumstance that he
is the only earning member in a family comprising an ailing wife and three
minor children. It would be relevant to note that the assertion to the effect
that Sanju @ Tinda has an ailing wife is not borne out from the record since
no medical reports in this behalf have been annexed either before the
authorities below or before this court.
10. Further, it has been sought to urge on behalf of Sanju @ Tinda that the
witnesses on the basis of whose statement the orders impugned herein was
passed, have not been produced for cross-examination. In this behalf it
would be suffice to note that the SHO, Police Station- Sagarpur was
examined in court and did allude to the fact that witnesses were unwilling to
depose against Sanju @ Tinda due to fear for their person and property at the
latter's hands. However, despite an opportunity being granted Sanju @ Tinda
refused to cross-examine the said SHO, Police Station- Sagarpur. Not only
this, as is evident from the record, Sanju @ Tinda despite opportunities in
this behalf failed to produce a single witness in his defence.
11. Lastly, it has been urged by counsel appearing on behalf of Sanju @
Tinda that the impugned orders are not based on any evidence. This
submission on behalf of Sanju @ Tinda has been made to be rejected,
inasmuch as, it is an admitted position that as many as 21 FIRs have been
registered against him which is a matter of record.
12. Apart from this, having perused the orders impugned herein, it is
observed that every opportunity was granted to Sanju @ Tinda to defend
himself and every opportunity was further provided to him to be represented
by a counsel and lead his defence in relation to the aforementioned show
cause notice, but he steadfastly refused to do so. It is also relevant to point
out that despite being directed to do so Sanju @ Tinda failed to execute
surety for his appearance and did not desist from his activities even during
the course of the externment proceedings.
13. In view of the foregoing discussion, I do not see any infirmity in the
orders impugned before this court so as to warrant any interference under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition being devoid of
merit is dismissed.
SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J
JANUARY 19, 2016
mk
