NARESH KUMAR Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 CrPC and under Article 227 of Constitution of India praying for quashing of the adverse remarks passed against him by the then learned ACMM in the case "FIR No. 105/1981, under Sections 365/392/397/398 read with Section 34 IPC, under Sections 25/54/59 of Arms Act and under Section 10 of Indian Aircrafts Act, 1934 titled as State vs. Tejinder Pal Singh". The grievance of the petitioner is that generic observations have been made by learned ACMM about him in the order dated 31.10.2006 without even issuing a notice requiring him to appear in the Court or giving him an opportunity of being heard before passing adverse remarks against him. Not only that, the learned ACMM also sent the copy of the order to the Commissioner of Police thereby subjecting the petitioner to further embarrassment. The observations made by learned ACMM have stigmatised the unblemished service career of the petitioner in gross violence of principles of natural justice. The petitioner had never shown any disrespect to the Court at any point of time, rather he had appeared before the same Court thrice earlier.

(2.) IT has been further submitted that petitioner was posted as DCP, IGI Airport and being administrative head of the concerned department, it was just not possible for him to leave the security arrangements to be made at the Airport in connection with departure of Prime Minister of India on his visit. The petitioner was directly responsible to make the security arrangements for Prime Minister at IGI Airport. The schedules/programmes of the visits of Prime Minister were not permitted to be disclosed for security reasons. It has been further submitted that he received a message from ACP, Palam while he was busy in security arrangements and at that time he could not have left the Airport to attend the Court. He directed the ACP, VRK to attend the Court. In the circumstances, on his inability to appear immediately in the case, the observations made by learned ACMM about his conduct were unwarranted and uncalled for. The same were without any basis and more so, as DCP (Security), IGI Airport, he was not required to appear before learned ACMM in connection with the case in which his presence was directed by the Court. The VRK Section is headed and managed by ACP who appeared before the learned ACMM. Not only that, the case was investigated by Crime Branch, Delhi Police and not by the Division headed by the petitioner.

(3.) NOTICE of the petition was given to the State.