RAM SINGH Vs. S S MANNON

JUDGEMENT

(1.) [Ed. facts : On 29.4.87, petitioner an S.I. (security) with wife, children and 2 relatives was after taking dinner at Hotel Satkar, Green Park, standing near the road while wife with children had gone to Pan Vendor for taking Pan Petitioner noticing some quarrel between his wife and one of the 3 boys standing at the Pan shop, went near and a brawl started. Respdt. Manan, who was on Patrol duty in a Police Jeep happened to pass that way. Seeing the commotion he took the petitioner and the boys to Police station and there asked the Duty Officer (S.I. Brijpal) to get petitioner medically examined as he was smelling liquor. After doing this and after making entries in the record, petitioner and the boys were allowed to go. Before this petitioner's wife had lodged a complaint with Duty Officer for misbehaviour against the 3 boys. Petitioner claiming that he informed these facts to his boss, Additional D.C.P.(s) and finding no action he filed criminal complaint u/Ss. 323, 365, 217, 218 Indian Penal Code against the ACP & S.I. Brij Pal and against the 3 boys u/s 354, 365/34 IPC. The Met. Mgte. after preliminary evidence held that no case was made out u/Ss. 365, 354 & 217, 218 Indian Penal Code and considered if fit to proceed u/S 323/34 against the 5 and u/S. 342 against Police Officers in addition. MM was told that beating or illegal confinement was no part of Official duty of Police Officers and hence sanction u/s 197, Cr. P.C. was not necessary. Order summoning them was passed on 5 6.87. Respds. 1 & 2 challenged this in revision and Additional Sessions Judge allowed same. Petitioner questioned this in High Court] After detailing above, Judgment is :

(2.) The petitioner reiterated his contention that the ACP had directed in a very highhanded manner to beat him up on the road without even caring to find out as to what was the basis of the altercation which he was having with one of those boys and later on arrested the complainant and forcibly put him in the jeep with the assistance of those three boys and brought him and his family members to the police station for which there was no justification. He has also repeated his allegations that even at the police station he was given a beating and locked up in a room till sent for medical exam. and that this again was not in discharge of official duties of a police officer and there has been a further dereliction of duty on their part in not taking any action against the three boys against whom his wife had lodged a complaint at the police station making out a case of molestation which is evidenced by daily diary entry No. 24 A recorded at the police station at 11.20 p.m. He therefore contended that no sanction for prosecution u/S. 197, Criminal Procedure Code . was required for these acts and that the learned Additional Sessions Judge has erred in accepting the pleas of the accused persons that they had acted in the discharge of official duties. He placed reliance on AIR 1970 S.C. 1661, Bhagwan Prasad vs. N.P. Mishra; 1979 Cr.A.R. 261 (S.C), B. Saha vs. M.S. Kochar ; AIR 1986 SC. 345, Balbir Singh vs. D.N, Kadian ; 1963 Cri. LJ. 397, Chandra Deo vs. Prakash Chandra; 31 (1987) D.L.T. 140, Pyarelal vs. Sita Ram ; 1978 Crl. L.J. 522, (Ker.) Lakshmana vs. C.R. Salochana and 1989 Crl. L.J. 624 (On.) Jagannath vs. Smt. Sambari.

(3.) Mr. J.R. Piryani appearing for the respondents (ACP Mannon and S.I. Brij Lal) submitted at the outset that certain duties are enjoined upon the officers of Delhi Police by virtue of various provisions of The Delhi Police Act, 1978 ('the Act') and that u/S. 60 thereof, vide clauses (c), (f) and (h) it is laid down that it shall be the duty of every police officer- --.