LexRAM MEHAR SINGH versus STATE OF N.C.T. OF DELHI AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2011) 10 S.C.R. 253 · RAM MEHAR SINGH v . . STATE OF N.C.T. OF DELHI AND ORS. · (Criminal Appeal Nos.1585-86 of 2011) AUGUST 12, 2011 [P. SATHASIVAM AND DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, JJ.] A B Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: ss.1071151 - Criminal proceedings under- Dispute between writ petitioners and others regarding immovable property - Proceedings u/ · C ss.1071151 initiated against the wnt petitioners - Grievance of writ petitioners that the police illegally detained them by invoking the provisions of ss.1071151 and thereby violated their fundamental rights - High Court. quashed the proceedings u/ss.1071151 and held that instead of resorting D to the provisions of ss.1071151 Cr.P.C., the provisions of s.145 should have been invoked and also ·awarded a sum of ?50,000 as token compensation to writ petitioners-High court further gave liberty to the writ petitioners to file suits for damages for tortuous liability against the erring police officials E and directed the Commissioner of Police to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the erring police officials - Held: Admittedly, the police officials i.e. appellants were not impleaded by name in the writ petitions - Thus, while hearing the writ petitions and writ appeals, these appellants were not F given an opportunity of hearing at all - The impugned judgments are set aside except to the extent that in all these cases the proceedings u/ss.1071151 stood quashed. Dispute arose between the writ petitioners and others regarding immovable property. The proceedings · G under Sections 107i151 Cr.P.C. were initiated against the writ petitioners. The grievance of the writ petitioners in two separate writ petitions before the High Court was that the police illegally detained them for one day by invoking 253 H 254 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011) 10 S.C.R. A the provisions of Sections 107/151 Cr.P.C. and thereby violated their fundamental rights. The High Court allowed the writ petitions and quashed the proceedings under Sections 107/151 Cr.P.C. and held that instead of resorting to the provisions of Sections 107/151 Cr.P.C., the B provisions of Section 145 Cr.P.C. could have been invoked and also awarded a sum of Rs. 50,000 as token compensation. In the first case, the Court further gave liberty to the said writ petitioner to file suits for damages for tortuous liability against the erring police officials. In c the second case, the court further gave directions to the Commissioner of Police to initiate· disciplinary proceedings against the appellants. The State of NCT filed appeals which were dismissed by the Division Bench of the High Court. The instant appeals were filed 0 by the aggrieved police officials. Disposing of the appeals, the Court HELD: 1. Admittedly, the police officials i.e. appellants were not impleaded by name in the writ E petitions. Thus, while hearing the writ petitions, these appellants were not given an opportunity of being heard at all before the writ court and the Single Judge passed certain orders/directions adversely affecting them. Before the Division Bench also none of these appellants were F impleaded and both the appeals stood dismissed by the common judgment. Thus, even before the Division Bench, all these appellants had not been given any opportunity to appear or plead their defence. Even on merit, the opinion of the High Court in the first case, that the proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. could have G been resorted to instead of Sections 107/151 Cr.P.C. did not seem to be correct. In fact it is the officer on spot who has to take a decision as to what provisions should be resorted to according to the prevailing circumstances. Even in another case if there had been altercation, H RAM MEHAR SINGH v. STATE OF N.C.T. OF DELHI 255 AND ORS. abusing, threatening and beating, by no means, it can be · A held that resorting to the provisions of Sections 107/151 Cr.P.C. was totally unwarranted. The Impugned judgments and orders are set aside except to the extent that in all these cases the proceedings under Sections 107/151 Cr.P.C. stood quashed. In first case liberty given B by the High Court to file a civil suit for recovery of immovable property shall remain intact. [Paras 11-13) [259-8-G] CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal C No. 1585-1586 of 2011. From the Judgment and Order dated 25.02.2008 of the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in WP (Criminal) N
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.