BALVINDER SINGH SODHI Vs. MAHENDER SINGH INSPECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 30th April, 1997 of the Additional District Judge, Delhi rejecting the plaint of the petitioner on an application moved by the defendants under Order 7, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, on the ground of the same being barred by limitation. The learned Additional District Judge held that the plaint was instituted againsta police officer beyond the three months period stipulated under Section 140 of the Delhi Police Act.

(2.) The petitioner had filed a suit for damages against respondent No. 1 who was the Station House Officer, Police Station, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi; respondent No. 2, being Deputy Commissioner of Police and the Delhi Administration through the Lt. Governor, impleaded as respondent No. 3.

(3.) The petitioner claims himself to be a person of repute, being President of the Traders' Association. He had a dispute with one Shri. H.C. Bagga, to whom he had let out a portion of his property. There was litigation between them. The petitioner alleges that he made several complaints to respondent No. 1 but no need was paid to them. The respondent No. 1, in connivance with the tenant H.C. Bagga, instead of protecting the petitioner registered false First Information Report bearing No. 81/92 under Sections 325/341 of the Indian Penal Code and FIR No. 156/92 under Sections 452/324 of the Indian Penal Code, against the petitioner. Not only this, respondent No. 1 maliciously recommended extemment of the petitioner from the Union Territory of Delhi. The initiation of extemment proceedings was outcome of conspiracy hatched between respondent No. 1 and tenant. These proceedings were later dropped by the DeputyCommissionerofPolice(South West), Delhi.The petitioner perforce had to even file a writ petition in the High Court, for quashing the said proceedings, wherein a show cause notice was issued culminating in the dropping of the extemment proceedings as noted above.