INSPECTOR SAMAY SINGH Vs. JOGINDER SINGH YADAV

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been preferred by the petitioners for quashing of order dated 22.02.2010 in Criminal Complaint (CC) No.360/2001 by which they were summoned for committing offences punishable under Sections 342/365/34 IPC.

(2.) Complaint case under Sections 340/342/365/442/448/506/34 IPC was filed by Joginder Singh Yadav against Devender, Rajender, Insp.Samay Singh and Const.Sunil alleging that on 25.11.2003, they came in Indica car bearing No. DL 3CV 2652; entered his office and threatened him to implicate in a false case by planting 'katta' on him. They forcibly dragged him into the car and took him to Police Station Prashant Vihar, New Delhi. He was threatened to pay Rs. 50,000/- or else he would be implicated in a case under Arms Act. He examined himself besides producing five witnesses. CW-5 (Gulshan Arora) exhibited details of incoming and outgoing calls from 24.11.2003 to 26.11.2003 on phone No.9811226899. CW-6 (Capt. Rakesh Bakshi) brought the record pertaining to phone No.9810587321 for the period from 24.11.2003 to 26.11.2003. Vide order dated 09.06.2006, learned Metropolitan Magistrate dismissed the complaint case. Complainant- Joginder Singh Yadav challenged the order in Criminal Revision No. 129/2006. By an order dated 04.12.2007, the learned Additional Sessions Judge (for short ASJ) allowed the revision petition and set aside the order. Case was remanded to the Trial Court to decide afresh on the point of summoning. After remand, learned ACMM vide impugned order dated 22.02.2010 summoned the petitioners only for offences under Sections 342/365/34 IPC. Complaint case against Devender and Rajender was dismissed. The petitioners filed Revision Petition Nos.50/2010 & 65/2010. However, the revision petitions were dismissed by learned ASJ by an order dated 28.02.2011. Being aggrieved, the petitioners have preferred the petition.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioners urged that the impugned summoning order cannot be sustained as the petitioners in discharge of their official duties had conducted the raid. They were having reasonable information that the complainant was engaged in the supply of countrymade fire arms in Delhi from U.P. The said information was conveyed by petitioner No.1 to ACP, Anti Homicide Unit, and on his instruction, raid was conducted. Daily Diary (DD) No. 6 dated 25.11.2003 was recorded at Anti Homicide Section, Crime Branch, Prashant Vihar, Delhi. Search at the shop of the complainant was conducted. However, nothing incriminating was recovered. The complainant and Yogesh Kumar were brought by the raiding party at Crime Branch Office at Prashant Vihar for further interrogation/ enquiry. They both were let off at 06.00 P.M. for which DD No.7 was recorded. The complainant himself entered a written information dated 25.11.2003 at PS Vasant Kunj in this regard. There was no mala fide on the part of the petitioners. The Trial Court was not empowered to take cognizance of the offence without prior approval of sanction by a competent authority under Section 197 Cr.P.C. read with Section 140 of Delhi Police Act. Yogesh was not examined by the complainant and he did not lodge any such complaint.