STATE Vs. ROBIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) (Oral) - Crl. M.A. 7999/2015 (Exemption) Allowed subject to all just exceptions. Crl. M.C. No. 2282/2015

(2.) Petitioner-State is aggrieved by impugned order of 14th May, 2015 whereby trial court has directed personal appearance of DCP (Outer) in the court. The reason given in the impugned order for directing so is that Commissioner of Police has been repeatedly intimated by the trial court that senior police officers were hesitant to appear in the Court as and when required, so request for exemption by DCP (Outer) stands rejected by the impugned order vide which bailable warrants in the sum of Rs.5,000.00 with Notice Under Sec. 350 Crimial P.C. has been issued against DCP (Outer). Mr. Vinod Diwakar, Additional Public Prosecutor for petitioner-State has placed on record copy of trial court's order of 1st May, 2015 to submit that directions issued vide aforesaid order were complied with as clarificatory response of 1st May, 2015 has been filed by DCP (Outer).

(3.) It was submitted by Mr. Vinod Diwakar, Additional Public Prosecutor for petitioner-State that aforesaid response (Annexure P-2) in relation to trial court's order of 1st May, 2015 is satisfactory and so issuance of bailable warrants with Notice under Sec. 350 Crimial P.C. with a specific direction to personally appear, issued to DCP (Outer) is unwarranted. It was pointed out that if at all Notice is to be given to police officials/officers, then it has to be under Sec. 60/122 of Delhi Police Act and not under Sec. 350 Crimial P.C. Reliance is placed upon decisions in State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. Vs. Jasvir Singh & Ors. (2011) 4 SCC 288 , R.S. Singh Vs. Uttar Pradesh Malaria Nirikshak Sangh & Ors. (2011) 4 SCC 281 , Crl. M.C. No. 226/2007 Naresh Kumar Vs. State 31st Oct., 2012 and Crl.M.C.No.174/2015 N. Gnanasambandan Vs. State of NCT of Delhi & Anr. 18th March, 2015 to submit that judicial restraint ought to be exercised in summoning senior Government Officers. Lastly, it was submitted that respondent-accused had jumped parole and had committed offence on 15th April, 2015 and a few days ago, respondent-accused has been re-arrested and put in jail and so issuance of Notice to DCP (Outer) deserves to be quashed.