Delhi High Court
D.V. Verma & Ors. vs Pawan Kumar Kohli on 24 July, 2018
$~48
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Decided on:- 24th July, 2018
+ CRL. M.C. 4467/2016
D.V. VERMA & ORS. ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr. Mukesh Gupta, Adv.
versus
PAWAN KUMAR KOHLI ..... Respondents
Through: Respondent in person.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
ORDER (ORAL)
1. The petitioners have been summoned by the Metropolitan
Magistrate by order dated 08.06.2016 on the basis of pre-summoning
inquiry held into the criminal complaint (CC No. 162/P/14) of the
respondent to stand trial for the offence under Section 211 of Indian
Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). Feeling aggrieved, they have approached
this Court by the petition at hand under Section 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C) on the submission that the process
initiated before the Court of Magistrate in the said complaint case is an
abuse of the process of law.
2. The petitioners concededly are municipal employees, they being
posted in the Karol Bagh Zone during the relevant period. On the
allegations and reports of unauthorized construction certain action
under the building bye-laws and Delhi Municipal Corporation Act,
1957 was initiated in respect of certain portion of property bearing no.
A-64/66, West Patel Nagar, New Delhi. Eventually, a report was
lodged statedly at the instance of, or by the petitioners, for registration
of a cognizable offence under Section 188 IPC and Section 461 of
Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957. The said report was examined
by police station Patel Nagar. It was, however, found that copy of
sealing order had not been provided and, therefore, no action for it
having been disobeyed leading to commission of offence under
Section 188 IPC could be initiated by registration of FIR. This was
communicated by the police to the municipal authority. There is
nothing on record to show any further action taken in the follow-up by
any quarter.
3. It is against this backdrop that the petitioner filed the criminal
complaint alleging that the petitioners had committed the offence
under Section 211 IPC.
4. There are two prime reasons why the criminal prosecution
before the Court of Magistrate ought not continue. The petitioners are
concededly employees of Delhi Municipal Corporation. They are
entitled to protection under Section 477 of Delhi Municipal
Corporation Act, 1957, which reads thus:-
"477. Protection of action of the Corporation, etc.--No
suit or prosecution shall be entertained in any court against
the Corporation or against any municipal authority or
against any municipal officer or other municipal employee
or against any person acting under the order or direction of
any municipal authority or any municipal officer or other
municipal employee, for anything which is in good faith
done or intended to be done, under this Act or any rule,
regulation or bye-law made thereunder".
5. There is nothing shown in the complaint or the pre-summoning
evidence from which bad faith in the impugned acts could be inferred.
The protection under Section 477 of Delhi Municipal Corporation Act,
1957 cannot be taken away. The proceedings, therefore, ought not be
allowed to continue [R.R. Gautam & Anr. vs. State & Anr. 2008 (1)
JCC 766].
6. On the given facts, no case of offence under Section 211 IPC
can be made out. All that the petitioners are stated to have done is to
make a request to the police for registration of FIR. The request was
turned down since the sealing order on the basis of which it was based
was not shared with the police. Neither the charge has been framed
nor any criminal proceedings have been taken out in the court of law.
7. The continuation of the criminal complaint in the above
backdrop would be an abuse of the process of law. Hence, the petition
is allowed. The proceedings arising out of aforesaid criminal
complaint are quashed.
R.K.GAUBA, J.
JULY 24, 2018
nk
