Dr. Saroj Singh v. State

1. Petitioner, Dr.(Mrs.) Saroj Singh vide this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is seeking following prayer:- "(a) Set aside the orders dated 29.3.2008 passed in relation to DD Entry 678 of 2007 and orders dated 31.3.2008, 2.4.2008 and 9.4.2008 passed by the Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate Shri Praveen Singh, Patiala House, New Delhi in the proceedings under Section 28/112 of Delhi Police Act arising out of DD Entries 76- 8/2007, 42-A/2007, 44-8/2007, 65-8/2006, 86-8/2005, 71- 8/2005 AND 78-8/2004 in view of the stay of prosecution granted by this Hon'ble Court vide order dated 28.3.2008; II

2. The petitioner is owner of property No.RZA-43 located in extended village \ abadi of Village Mahipalpur on NH-8. With a view to augment her income, she decided to run a Guest House under the name and style of 'Hotel Swapnil International' at the said property. Accordingly, the petitioner applied to respective authorities for necessary permission, including the license for running a Guest House to DCP (Licensing}, Delhi Police. The petitioner was granted trade license by MCD. She was also granted permission from the Health Department and MCD. Govt. of NCT of Delhi accorded permission to the petitioner by the concerned Luxury Tax Department. Even the Fire Clearance was received for running the Guest House. DCP (Licensing), however, did not 2011:DHC:10151 decide the application. While the application was pending, in the year 2007, local police challaned the petitioner's hotel vide DD entries No.76-8/2007, 42- A/2007, 44-8/2007, 65-8/2006, 86-8/2005, 71-8/205 and 78-8/2004. Prosecution regarding those complaints are pending in the court of learned M.M., Patiala House, New Delhi.

3. Being aggrieved of the aforesaid action of local police, the petitioner filed Crl.M.C. No.237/2008 titled 'Dr.(Mrs.) Saroj Singh Vs. State & Others' seeking quashing of the prosecution under Section 28/112 Delhi Police Act arising out of cthe aforesaid complaints.

4. This Court, vide order dated 28th March, 2008 disposed of the said petition directing that the prosecution of the petitioner under Section 28/112 Delhi Police Act shall remain stayed till the Commissioner of Police dispose of the applications for grant of license one way or the other. It was also directed that DCP (Licensiiii;J) should not keep such an application pending indefinitely and a decision must be taken on the application in accordance with law within a ~period of three months from tne date of communication of the order of the High Court.

5. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that despite of the above referred stay order issued by the court on 28th March, 2008, the trial court has gone on to pass the impugned orders dated 29th March, 2008, 3pt March, 2008, 2nd April 2008 and gth April, 2008 in the aforesaid criminal proceedings which, amounts to violation of the order of the Court. Thus, learned counsel for the petitioner urged for quashing of the aforesaid orders of learned M.M.

6. Respondent, in the status report filed under the signature of SHO, P.S. Vasant Kunj, reported thus:- "Under the impression that the petitioner has been running the said guest house unauthorisedly in flagrant violation of the relevant provisions of the Delhi Police Act and her oral version regarding pendency of any application a just a ploy to mislead the local police and as such the local police had to swing into action in discharge of its duty and filed the kalandra against the alleged unlawful activities of the petitioner. The court of Ld. M.M. Shri Praveen Singh, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi under bonafide impression initiated proceedings and the money got deposited inadvertantly by the petitioner has been ordered to be refunded in wake of the orders dated 28.3.2008 passed by Hon'ble Court."

7. From the aforesaid status report, it is obvious that stand of the prosecution is that the stay order was never communicated to learned M.M., as such, he bona fide continued to proceed with the trial and passed the impugned orders. It is not the stand of the prosecution that the order of the High Court dated 28th March, 2008 was ever communicated to learned M.M. or that the application of the petitioner for grant of license has been dismissed by the DCP (Licensing) concerned.

8. In view of the above, the impugned orders being violative of the stay order issued by this court are liable to be set aside.

9. The petition is accordingly allowed and the impugned orders dated 29th March, 2008, 3pt March, 2008, 2nct April, 2008 and gth April, 2008 passed by learned M.M. are set aside. MAY 24, 2011

(AJIT BHARIHOKE) JUDGE