LexRAJINDER SINGH PATHANIA & ORS. versus STATE OF N.C.T. OF DELHI & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B [2011] 10 S.C.R. 260 RAJINDER SINGH PATHANIA & ORS. v. STATE OF N.C.T. OF DELHI & ORS. (Criminal Appeal No. 1582 of 2011) AUGUST 12, 2011. [P. SATHASIVAM AND DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, JJ.] Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Sections 1071151 - Proceedings under - Against respondent no. 3 and 4 since C police constables while patrolling found them quarrelling with each other in intoxicated condition at public place - Respondents produced before Magistrate and since they· could not furnish bail bonds, were sent to judicial custody - 1 Bondsfumished the next day and respondents were released o - Writ petition by respondents seeking quashing of proceedings ulss. 1071151 and to initiate proceedings against. the said constables for illegal detention - High Court quashed . the criminal case against respondent nos. 3 and 4 and directed Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to investigate E the case against the constables and awarded a compensation of Rs. 25, 0001- each to the respondents for wrongful confinement - On appeal, held: On facts, it was not a fit case where investigation could be handed over to the CBI - It was not a case where State authorities were interested or involved F in the incident - An arrest uls. 151 can be supported when the person to be arrested designs to commit a cognizable offence - Jurisdiction vested in a Magistrate to act u/s. 107 is to be exercised in emergent situation - Proceedings ulss. 1071151 were initiated four years ago and the High Court quashed the proceedings - At such a belated stage G correctness of the decision to that extent does not require consideration - Even otherwise the said issue remains purely academic - As regards the issue of compensation, the High Cowt erred in awarding even token compensation to the tune H 260 RAJINDER SINGH PATHANIA & ORS. v. STATE OF 261 N.C.T. OF DELHI & ORS. of Rs.25,0001- each as the High Court did not hold any A enquiry and passed the. order merely after considering the status report submitted by the State without hearing any of the persons against whom a/legations of abuse of power had been made - Impugned judgment is set aside except to the extent that the proceedings u/ss. 1071151 against the B respondents stood quashed - Investigation. Appellant nos. 2 to 4-Constables while patrolling found respondent nos.3 and 4 fighting with each other in an intoxicated condition. They were booked under Sections 107/151 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 C and were produced before the Special Executive Magistrate The respondents could not furnish the bonds and thus, the Magistrate sent them to judicial custody. The said respondents furnished the bond of Rs.15,000/- each on the next day, and were released. Thereafter, the D respondents filed a writ petition for quashing of the proceedings under Sections 107/151 Cr.P.C. and to initiate criminal proceedings against appellant nos.2 to 4 and award them compensation for illegal detention. The High Court quashed the criminal case registered against E respondent nos. 3 and 4 and directed the Central Bureau of Investigation to investigate the case against appellant nos. 2 to 4; and awarded a compensation of Rs.25,000/- each to the said respondents for wrongful confinement. Therefore, the appellants filed the instant appeals. F Allowing the appeals, the Court HELD: 1.1 In the writ petition, altogether there were , seven respondents, Including the appellants and the Magistrate who had passed the order under Sections 107/ G 151 Cr.P.C. The counsel for the State accepted notice on behalf of all the seven respondents. Most. of the respondents before the writ court had been impleaded by name in personal capacity making allegations o_f exceeding their powers anct abusing their positions. H 262 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 10 S.C.R. A There is nothing on record to show that the standing , counsel had any communication with persons against whom allegations of mala fide had been alleged, particularly, appellant nos. 2 to 4 and the Magistrate. Thus, none of them had an opportunity of appearing before the 8 High Court. The submission that as the State had been representing all of them, there was no need to hear each and every individual cannot be accepted. The impugned judgment and order in these appeals was passed in flagrant violation of the principles of natural justice. [Para C 7] [269-C-G] 1.2 No further investigation or inquiry h
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.