Delhi High Court
Neeraj @ Chinti vs The State Of Nct Of Delhi & Anr. on 8 May, 2017
$~25
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Decided on: 8th May, 2017
+ W.P. (CRL.) 207/2017 and Crl.M.A.1288/2017
NEERAJ @ CHINTI ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Sanjeev Panda, Advocate
versus
THE STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. .... Respondents
Through: Mr. Rajesh Mahajan, ASC for the
State with Mr. Lokesh Chandra, Adv.
SI B.K. Bharti, PS Jaffarpur Kalan
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
ORDER (ORAL)
1. By the writ petition at hand preferred under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) challenge is brought to the validity of the
order dated 30.11.2016 passed by the Administrator of the National
Capital Territory of Delhi (Lieutenant Governor), dismissing the
appeal of the petitioner under Section 51 of Delhi Police Act, 1978 as
also the order dated 28.06.2011 of the Deputy Commissioner of
Police, South West District passed under Section 47 read with Section
51 of the Delhi Police Act, 1978 thereby confirmed.
2. The effect of the order of Additional Deputy Commissioner of
Police, as confirmed in appeal by the Administrator, essentially is that
the petitioner stands directed to remove himself beyond the limits of
National Capital Territory of Delhi for a period of two years w.e.f.
05.07.2016 with inhibition against entry or return to the said area
without written permission of the competent authority, though with
exception to the effect that he may come to Delhi to attend the hearing
in the courts whenever such situation arises.
3. A notice on the writ petition was issued by order dated
23.01.2017 and a counter affidavit was directed to be filed. No
counter affidavit has been submitted in response. The petition is
resisted on the basis of available record.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional
Standing Counsel for the respondent/State have been heard at length
and the record has been perused.
5. Having heard arguments and upon perusal, this court finds that
the proceedings leading to the order dated 28.06.2016 of the
Additional Deputy Commissioner of Police are vitiated on account of
total non application of mind. It is for this short reason that the
petition at hand must be allowed and the impugned orders quashed/set
aside. The reasons are set out hereinafter.
6. The notice for show cause as to why the order of externment be
not passed against him under Section 47 of the Delhi Police Act, 1978
was issued to the petitioner on 13.03.2013. In the said notice reference
was made to three criminal cases they being, FIR No.245/2011, dated
27.08.2011, under Section 379 IPC; FIR No.266/2011 dated
21.09.2011, under Sections 392/394 IPC and 25 of Arms Act; and FIR
No. 361/2011 dated 30.09.2011, under Sections 398/401 IPC and 25
Arms Act, all of Police Station Manesar Gurgaon. It appears that,
subsequently, during pendency of such proceedings, it came to light
that petitioner was also involved in three other crimes, they being case
FIR No.333/2011 dated 06.09.2011 under Section 379 IPC of Police
Station Palam Viahr, Gurgaon; FIR No.159/2011, dated 09.06.2011,
under Section 379 IPC of Police Station Manesar Gurgaon and FIR
No.61/2012 dated 23.05.2012, under Section 379 IPC of Police
Station J.P. Kalan. In this view another show cause notice was issued
to the petitioner in continuation of the first one.
7. The proceedings of the Additional Deputy Commissioner of
Police indicate that the petitioner did not participate in spite of due
notice and, thus, was set ex parte. This, however, would not mean the
proceedings were to be conducted without proper application of mind.
The fact that the proceedings were being conducted ex parte cast even
greater responsibility on the competent authority. The non application
of mind vitiating the order that was eventually passed on the available
material is reflected by the following reasons at the second page:-
"...The record suggests that the respondent is a criminal
of such a desperate nature, who was involved in 03
criminal cases of IPC and Arms Act. Even during the
course of proceedings the respondent was found involved
in 03 more cases of IPC leads to a total of 06 cases
which means that even the proceeding has not detened
(sic) him in involving in illegal activities. He has even
committed the crime during the pendency of externment
proceedings, which indicates that he does not intend to
mend his ways..."
8. Clearly, the Additional Deputy Commissioner of Police having
mentioned six cases referred to above, three indicated in the first show
cause notice issued on 13.03.2013 and the other three mentioned in the
supplementary notice issued on 22.07.2015, did not remember that the
applicant's name had figured in not just three but in six cases, all of
each pertain to the period prior to the initiation of the externment
proceedings. It was wrongly observed that three of the said cases
pertain to the period "during the course of the proceedings". Since
the Additional Deputy Commissioner of Police proceeded to conclude
that the involvement of the petitioner in illegal activities was
indicative of he not being deterred by the possible externment or that
he did not intend to mend his ways, on the erroneous impression that
the three out of six cases pertain to post show cause notice period, his
conclusions are vitiated, they suffering from non application of mind.
9. Pertinent to note that in the proceedings which concluded on
28.06.2016 before the Additional Deputy Commissioner of Police, and
in the proceedings arising out of appeal before the administrator which
culminated on 13.11.2016, there was no material produced indicating
any involvement of the petitioner in any criminal case after the last
case registered involving his name, it being of 23.05.2012 (FIR
No.61/2012 of Police Station J.P. Kalan). This shows the subjective
satisfaction recorded by the competent authority in even more poor
light.
10. In above view, the impugned orders cannot be sustained. Thus,
the order dated 28.06.2016 of Additional Deputy Commissioner of
Police, South-West District, New Delhi directing externment of the
petitioner from the area of National Capital Territory of Delhi for a
period of two years w.e.f. 05.07.2016 and the order dated 30.11.2016
of the Administrator of the Govt. of NCT of Delhi dismissing the
appeal under Section 51 of the Delhi Police Act, 1978 are hereby set
aside and vacated.
11. The petition stands disposed of in above terms.
R.K.GAUBA, J.
MAY 08, 2017
vk
