LAXMI NARAIN Vs. KRISHAN KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER is Assistant Commissioner of Police in Delhi, who has been summoned as an accused in Complaint No. 92/1/2003, under Section 218/201 I.P.C., registered at police station Prasad Nagar, Delhi vide order of 22nd April, 2004 and petitioner appearing before trial court, Notice under Section 251 of Cr.P.C. for the offence under Section 201 of I.P.C. has been framed against him on 8th May, 2012. Quashing of aforesaid complaint, summoning order and Notice framed is sought in this petition on merits.

(2.) AT the hearing, learned counsel for petitioner had submitted that no such raid, as alleged by respondent - complainant was conducted in pursuance to any kind of information being supplied by respondent - complainant, who is a police informer and infact, the instant complaint is a counter blast to proceedings initiated against respondent -complainant for the offence under Section 182 of I.P.C. It was vehemently contended that a departmental enquiry was conducted upon similar complaint of respondent/complainant by vigilance department of Delhi Police and respondent -complainant had participated in the above said enquiry proceedings, in which petitioner has been exonerated. Certified copy of Enquiry Report of 23rd February, 2001 on record is relied upon in which there is a reference to initiation of proceedings under Section 182 of the I.P.C against respondent/complainant. Thus, it was contended that filing of the instant complaint subsequent to the enquiry report i.e. on 4th May, 2001 is an abuse of process of the court and so the complaint and proceedings emanating there -from deserve to be quashed, as no sanction under Section 197 of Cr.P.C. or under Section 140 of The Delhi Police Act has been obtained although in the instant complaint there is specific averment that a separate application for permission under Section 197 of Cr.P.C. shall be moved at appropriate time. Petitioner's counsel had asserted during the course of hearing that the copies of the ACRs reports filed by him along with the rejoinder in this case clearly shows that petitioner has an unblemished service record and petitioner has been rated as a very good officer and that the allegations levelled against him in this complaint are baseless and motivated.

(3.) TO resist this petition, it was vehemently urged by learned counsel for respondent -complainant that this petition deserves to be out -rightly dismissed being hit by inordinate delay and latches and because second revision petition in garb of a petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. is not maintainable. It was urged that Section 197 Cr.P.C. and Section 140 of The Delhi Police Act are not attracted to facts of instant case as petitioner had allowed accused in a gambling case to go scot free after taking money from them and such an act was not done under the colour of official duty. It was also urged that whether instant complaint is a counter blast to proceedings under Section 182 of the Cr.P.C. initiated against respondent -complainant is an aspect which cannot be gone into in these proceedings and it is required to be tested at trial. In support of above submissions, reliance is placed upon decisions in Rajan Kumar Manchanda Vs. State of Karnataka 1990 (Supp.) SCC 132; Bata @ Batakrushna & ors. Vs. Anama Behra 1990 Crl. L.J. 1110; H.H.B. Gill & Anr. Vs. The King A.I.R. (35) 1948 Privy Council 128; S.B. Saha & ors. M.S. Kochar AIR 1979 SC 1841; Madan Mohan Kesar Vs. State & Anr. 2010 [1] JCC 310; Paul George Vs. State of N.C.T. of Delhi 2008 [2] JCC 858; Inspector Bal Krishan Vs. State of Delhi 2000 [1] JCC [Delhi] 102; Bholu Ram Vs. State of Punjab & Anr. 2008 Crl. L.J. 4576; State of Haryana Vs. Jagdish Chander 1996 (3) C.C. Cases 500 (HC); Shabir Tambawala Vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr. 1997 (3) CCrJ 212 and Rajesh Chetwal Vs. State in Crl. M.C. No. 1656/2011, rendered on 24th August, 2011.