D.K. Associates v. Sunder Lal

1. Criminal Revision Petition has been placed before this Court on a suo motu cognizance on the letters dated 7th June, 20II enclosing therewith an order of even date sent by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate and 8th June, 20II sent by the Additional DCP, South East District.

2. The facts giving rise to the passing of the order dated 7th June, 20Il by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate and the letter of the Additional DCP CrI.Rev.P. No. 280/201I Page I of 7 oh 2011:DHC:19880 I,\ I dated 8th June, 20Il are that a complaint case No.292612000 titled as D.K. Associates Vs. Sunder Lal is pending before the Learned Trial Court. On 28th January,2009 bailable warrants were issued against the accused Sunder Lal which were received back unexecuted with the remarks that the process server had met a person called Saroj, purportedly a tenant, who informed that the premises is owned by a person called Bhagwat and no such person in the name of the accused is in occupancy thereof. Thereafter, on the basis of the report fresh bailable warrants were issued against the accused from time to time. However, the same were received back unexecuted. The warrants issued on 7ft December,2009 were received back unexecuted with the report that the process server had met the son of the accused called Pawan Kumar aged 18 years who had informed him that the accused was not in town. Thus, the learned Trial Court finally issued non-bailable warrants against the accused vide its order dated 25th January, 2011 However, process could not be issued and thus, complainant was given opportunity to comply the order dated 25th January,2011. The non-bailable warrants were received back unexecuted with the identical remarks that "the accused is not in town".

3. However, on24'hMuy, 20II accused along with his learned counsel Crl.Rev.P. No. 280/201I appeared before the Court and filed an application for cancellation of nonbailable warrants issued against him. The Learned Trial Court after perusing record examined the accused under Section 165 of the Indian Evidence Act. The accused in his statement on oath before the Court on 24h Muy, 20II stated that twice Police officers visited his residential address in respect of execution of warrants issued against him. For the first time they visited around two and a half months ago when he was away in Haryana in respect of the treatment of his wife. The Police officers left no information regarding the case particulars or the Court's name on account of which he could not appear before the Court. Lastly and for the second time the Police official visited on Friday or Saturday prior to 24th Muy, 20II and duly informed him of the dates of hearing. The said Police official had taken a sum of Rs. 200/- for not apprehending him and enabling him to prefer a cancellation application before this Court.

4. Thus, according to the Learned Trial Court it fully exposed the system as to how the Police officers manage to misuse the official machinery. The Learned Trial Court thus issued Court notice to SHO P.S. Lajpat Nagar and SHO P.S. Ambedkar Nagar to show cause as to why befitting action for CrLRev.P. No. 280/201I having committed contempt of lawful authority of this Court be not initiated against the Delhi Police. Show cause notice was also issued to the DCPs concerned to appear personally with the cogent explanation with regard to such like practice being professed within their jurisdiction for 7th June, 20t[1]. A notice was also issued to the Commissioner of Police to depute officer for appearance on the next date of hearing along with the reply to the Court order issued, in order to assist the Court.

5. On 7th June, z}ll,the Inspector deputed by the DCP, Legal Cell, PHQ furnished an Action Taken Report for and on behalf of the Commissioner of Police and the ACP, Lajpat Nagar filed another for and on behalf of the Additional DCP/South-East District. As per the report filed under the signatures of Additional DCP/South-East District, it was stated that notices were issued to Constable Rakesh and HC Sahib Singh asking to explain the lapses committed by Constable Rakesh in conducting a proper enquiry to execute the bailable warrants and HC Sahib Singh for his failure to supervise resulting in returning of. bailable warrants as unexecuted before the Court without proper enquiry. During the enquiry conducted by the ACP, Lajpat Nagar, Sunder Lal retracted from his statement. Despite retraction of Sunder Lal, explanation of Constable Rakesh, HC Sahib Singh and HC Godha Crl.Rev.P. No. 280/20I I Singh was called for, asking them to explain as to why disciplinary action should not be taken against them under Delhi Police (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1980. Not satisfied by the report, the learned Trial Court directed the ACP, Lajpat Nagar to apprise the Additional DCP/South-East District that her appearance cannot be dispensed with and directed her to appear.

6. When the matter was againtaken up at 11:35 hours on 7th June 2011 the Learned Metropolitan Magistrate called the Addl. DCP in the Chamber who went inside along with the other officers. The other officers were directed to leave the chamber and it is at that time that a dialogue ensued between the two of them. After the dialogue, the learned Metropolitan Magistrate asked the Addl. DCP to go out from the Chamber and thinking that it meant that she could leave, the Additional DCP left not only the chamber of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate but even the Court premises. The Learned Metropolitan Magistrate took offence to the same and came to the conclusion that Addl. DCP and the other officers were deserters and thus, issued notices under the Contempt of Court Act and under Section 350 Cr.P.C.

7. The conduct of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate on 7th June, 20Il Crl.Rev.P. No. 280/20I I calling the Addl. DCP South-East Distt to his Chamber, directing all other qfficers to leave and asking irrelevant questions to her was wholly unbecoming. The Courts in India are open Courts. The Learned Trial Court could have expressed itself in its order within the framework of law. It was also unwarranted on the part of a Judicial Officer to have stated to the police officer that the entire Police Department was thoroughly conupt. No system is comtpt. Comrption is always individualized. Merely because the Learned Judge felt that certain people in the system were comrpt, it could not have labelled the entire system as comrpt. On this provocation the Additional DCP also stated improperly for the judicial system. The Learned Trial Judge was anguished.by the remarks of the Addl. DCP South-East District at the integrity of the judiciary which were undoubtedly unwarranted though pursuant to the provocation. In nutshell from the perusal of the order passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate and the affidavit of the Addl. DCP it is apparent that the sanctity of the high offices they held was not maintained by them.

8. A perusal of the order shows that the Learned Trial Court grossly exceeded in his jurisdiction by passing inappropriate remarks against the Addl. DCP South-East District. Thus the remarks against the Addl. DCP in Crl.Rev.P. No. 2 80/20 1 I the order dated 7th Juns, 20lI passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate are expunged.

9. I even find no case of issuance of show cause notice for contempt and under Section 350 Cr.P.C. was made out as the Learned Trial Court had not asked the Additional DCP to stay back after coming out from the Chamber. This is evident from the order of the learned Trial Court wherein emphasis is only laid to "this Court was constrained to ask her to leave the chamber". Thus, the officers could not have been termed as deserters as has been done by the Learned Trial Court. The show cause notices under the Contempt of Court Act and Section 350 Cr. P.C. issued against Addl. DCP South-East Distt, ACP and SHO P.S. Lajpat Nagar, ATO P.S. Ambedkar Nagar and the Inspector deputed by the DCP/ Legal Cell are also set aside.

10. The Learned Session Judge is directed to place the complaint case No.292612000 before another learned Metropolitan Magistrate for fuither proceedings. 1 1. Revision Petition is disposed of. Trial Court record be sent back. fi4/"ki-.ft,,fL MUKTA GUPTA, J. AUGUST l[9],20ll 'gu'