RAM MEHAR SINGHversusSTATE OF N.C.T. OF DELHI AND ORS.

                    [2011) 10 S.C.R. 253

                   · RAM MEHAR SINGH                             A
                              v.
         . STATE OF N.C.T. OF DELHI AND ORS.
          · (Criminal Appeal Nos.1585-86 of 2011)
                     AUGUST 12, 2011
                                                                 B
    [P. SATHASIVAM AND DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, JJ.]

      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
  by the aggrieved police officials.
0
          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) No. 2448 of
2006.
                              WITH                               D
Criminal Appeal Nos. 1587-1588 of 2011.

    K.K. Mohan for the Appellant.

    Sadhna Sandhu, Anil Katiyar, D.S. Mahra, A.P. Mohanty,       E
C. Balakrishna and Anil Kumar Sangal for the Respondents.

    The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

    DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, J. 1. Leave granted in all the cases.
                                                                 F
    · 2. The criminal appeals arising out of S.L.P.(Crl.)
Nos.5998-5999 of 2008 have been filed against the common
judgment and order dated 28.5.2008 passed by the High Court
of Delhi in LP.A. Nos. 286/2008 and 289/2008. Though the
matters had arisen before the Division Bench from different      G
judgments of the Single Judge Bench, however, the same had
been heard together and disposed of by the impugned
judgment and in all these cases, the Division Bench dismissed
the appeals filed by the State of N.C.T. of Delhi, respondents
herein, against the judgments of the learned Single Judge        H
    256     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2011] 10 S.C.R.


A dated 28.2.2008 in W.P. (Crl.) No. 1392 of 2007 and 25.2.2008
  passed in W.P. (Crl.) No. 2448 of 2006, wherein it has been
  alleged by the writ petitioners that the police authorities had
  misused their ·powers while resorting to the provisions of
  Sections 107/151 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
B (hereinafter called Cr.P.C.) and violated their fundamental
  rights. A learned Single Judge had quashed the criminal
  proceedings under Sections 107/151 Cr.P.C.; awarded a token
  compensation and further directed the Central Bureau of
  Investigation (hereinafter called CBI) to investigate the cases
C against the police officials who had allegedly misused their
  powers, and directed the police administration to initiate
  proceedings against such officials.

          3. Facts and circumstances giving rise to Criminal Appeals
    arising out of SLP (Crl.) Nos. 5998-5999 of 2008 are that there
D   had been some dispute between one Shri Raj Kumar Bansal
    and his wife Smt. Urvashi Bansal. The writ petitioner Shri
    Purshottam Ramnani being a family friend helped Smt. Urvashi
    Bansal financially by giving a huge a 11ount of loan and as the
    same was not returned, dispute arose between them regarding
E   the immovable properties. On the complaint of Smt. Urvashi
    Bansal, the proceedings under Sections 107/151 Cr.P.C. were
    initiated against the writ petitioner and in that respect he was
    produced before the Special Executive Magistrate, Jahangir
    Puri, Delhi (hereinafter called the Magistrate) on 25.8.2007,
F   wherein he was released on furnishing personal bond. The said
    Shri Purshottam Ramnani filed W.P.(Crl.) No. 1392 of 2007 on
    31.10.2007 alleging that in case there was some dispute
    regarding the immovable property, the police could not resort
    to the provisions of Sections 107/151 Cr.P.C., and since he
G   had been detained in jail for one day, there was violation of his
    fundamental rights, therefore, he should be awarded
    compensation and erring police officials be punished.

         4. The writ petition was heard and disposed of by the
    learned Single Judge vide judgment and order dated 28.2.2008
H
 RAM MEHAR SINGH v. STATE OF N.C.T. OF DELHI 257
       AND ORS. [DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.]
granting all reliefs sought by the writ petitioner to the effect that   A
proceedings under Sections 107/151 Cr.P.C. were quashed.
The court held that the writ petitioner was illegally detained by
invoking provisions of Sections 107/151 Cr.P.C. and the
provisions of Section 145 Cr.P.C. could have been invoked; a
sum of Rs.50,000/- was awarded as token compensation. The               B
court further gave liberty to the said writ petitioner to file suits
for damages for tortuous liability against the erring police
officials and also for recovery of possession of the immovable
property.

    5. Being aggrieved, the State of NCT of Delhi preferred             C
LP.A. No.286 of 2008 and the same was dismissed by the
impugned judgment and order dated 26.5.2008.

     6. The present appellant was SHO of the police station
concerned at the relevant time. Admittedly, in the writ petition        D
he was not a party by name, nor any notice had ever been
issued to him and he had no opportunity to defend himself.
Even before the Division Bench in the LP.A. filed by the State
he was not impleaded as a party. Thus, the relevant submission
on his behalf is that certain observations and directions have          E
been made against him though he had never been heard.

     7. Submission on behalf of the learned counsel for the
contesting respondents has been that not giving an opportunity
of hearing to the present appellant either before the learned
Single Judge or the Division Bench remains immaterial, for the
                                                                        F
reason, that he would be heard by the concerned authorities
during the disciplinary proceedings to be initiated in pursuance
of the impugned judgments and orders. However, there is no
denial by him of the fact that the present appellant had neither
been made a party by name nor he had been given any notice              G
of the proceedings and thus, he had no opportunity of being
heard. The judgments of the courts below are based on the
premises that instead of resorting to the provisions of Sections
107/151 Cr.P.C. the provisions of Section 145·Cr.P.C. could
have been invoked in the present situation.                             H
    258      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2011] 10 S.C.R.


A         8. In Criminal Appeals arising out of SLP (Crl.) Nos. 6719-
    6720 of 2008, the facts had been that the appellant No.1-
    Sudesh Ranga being the SHO of the Police Station had
    received a complaint from Ashok Kumar Munna, the respondent
    herein against Keshav Kumar, respondent No.2 that the water
B   from his toilet had been entering into the house of the
    complainant and damaged the entire wall because of seepage,
    and foul smell was also coming. On being asked, the
    respondent Keshav Kumar refused to carry out the repair and
    quarrelled with him and beaten him. In view of the said
c   complaint, Keshav Kumar was detained under Sections 107/
    151 Cr.P.C. on 16.7.2006 and was produced before the
    Magistrate on 17.7.2006, wherein he was directed to be
    released on furnishing personal bond of Rs.5,000/- with one
    surety in the like amount. As he failed to furnish the personal
D   bond he was sent to judicial custody and was released only on
    18.7.2006 on furnishing the said bond. Keshav Kumar filed writ
    petition on 30.10.2006 alleging the violation of his fundamental
    rights by the police authorities by resorting to the provisions of
    Sections 107/151 Cr.P.C. The High Court entertained the said
E   writ petition and asked the respondent therein to submit the
    status report. The High Court after considering the same
    disposed of the writ petition vide order dated 25.2.2008
    quashing the proceedings under Sections 107/151 Cr.P.C.;
    directing to pay a token compensation to the complainant to
    the tune of Rs.50,000/- and further direction was issued to the
F   Commissioner of Police to initiate disciplinary proceedings
    against the appellants.

      9. Being aggrieved, the State of NCT of Delhi preferred
  L.P.A. No. 289 of 2008 which has been dismissed vide
G impugned judgment and order dated 28.5.2008. Hence, these
  appeals.

       1O. As both the matters had been disposed of by the
  Division Bench by the common judgment, we have heard them
H together alongwith other Criminal Appeals arising out of SLP
  (Crl) Nos. 1773 of 2008 and 5702 of 2008 and are being
RAM MEHAR SINGH v. STATE OF N.C.T. OF DELHI 259
      AND ORS. [DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.]
disposed of by the common judgment.                                  A

      11. Whatever may be the legal position, admittedly, the
police officials i.e. appellants had not been impleaded by name
in the writ petitions. The standing, counsel appearing for the
State of N.C.T. of Delhi had taken notice on behalf of the parties   B
excluding the private parties. Thus, while hearing the writ
petitions, these appellants had not been given an opportunity
of hearing at all before the writ court and definitely the learned
Single Judge passed certain orders/directions against them.

     12. Being aggrieved, the State filed LP.As. before the          C
Division Bench wherein also none of these appellants had
been impleaded and both the appeals stood dismissed by the
common judgment and order dated 28.5.2008. Thus, even
before the Division Bench, all these appellants had not been
given any opportunity to appear or plead their defence. Even         D
on merit, the opinion of the High Court in first case, that the
proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. could have been
resorted to instead of Sections 107/151 Cr.P.C. does not
seem to be correct. In fact it is the officer on spot who has to
take a decision as what provisions should be resorted to             E
according to the prevailing circumstances. Even in another
case if there had been altercation, abusing, threatening and
beating, by no means, it can be held that resorting to the
provisions of Sections 107/151 Cr.P.C. was totally
unwarranted.                                                         F
      13. We have decided other connected appeals arising out
of SLP (Crl.) Nos. 1773 of 2008 and 5702 of 2008 giving
reasons. These appeals stand disposed of in terms of the
same. In view of the above, the judgments and orders impugned
herein are set aside except to the extent that in all these cases    G
the proceedings under Sections 107/151 Cr. P. C. stood
quashed. In first case liberty given by the High Court to file a
civil suit for recovery of immovable property shall remain intact.

D.G.                                      Appeals disposed of.       H