CHAMELI Vs. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) At the outset I may mention that this matter should have been listed as Criminal Writ because the petitioner has sought writ of certiorari seeking quashment of a notice issued under Section 50 of the Delhi Police Act for taking action against the petitioner under Section 47 of the Act. Mr. Vimla Mehta, Additional Deputy Commissioner of Police, South District, New Delhi had issued notice dated 13th May, 1986 under Section 50 of the Delhi Police Act informing the petitioner that she has to be proceeded against under Section 47 of the Act and then the notice reproduces the allegation that since 1977 the petitioner has been committing acts and movements which are causing alarm, harm and danger to the residents of the localities of Mehrauli, Vasant Vihar and adjoining police.stations. It was also mentioned in the notice that the petitioner has been involved in 18 criminal cases, most of them are under the Punjab Excise Act, a faw under N.D.P.S. Act and one under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code and one under the Dangerous Drugs Act. in some of cases .she has been convicted and some of them are pending trial and in some she has been acquitted. It was mentioned in the notice that the witnesses including the camera witnesses are not willing to come forward to give evidence against the petitioner in public by reason of apprehension on their part as regards the safety of their persons and they also apprehend that they wo uld be assaulted by the petitioner if they give evidence against her.

(2.) This notice has been challenged by the petitioner on the score that this has been issued in a mala fide manner inasmuch as one constable Pradeep Kumar of Police Post Mahipalpur on 27th July, 1985 in the absence of the petitioner entereder jhuggi with the intention to outrage the modesty of her daughter-in-lawamed Babita but he failed to succeed in his attempt and thereafter two police officials came and demolished her jhuggi and a complaint had been made to higher authority in that respect and that she has been involved in false criminal cases due to enmity and that the local police has prevailed upon the Additional Deputy Commissioner of Police to start the proceedings against her under the Delhi Police Act. It is pleaded in the petition that the allegation made in the notice are baseless and the Additional Deputy Commissioner of Police concerned has acted in a mechanical manner without applying her mind in issuing the said notice. A plea was also taken that the provisions of the said Act and the issuance of a notice under the said provisions are violative of Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution as they impose undue and unreasonable restrictions on the liberty of the petitioner. It was also pleaded that notice is also bad as it fails to comply with the mandatory provisions of Section 47 of the Act inasmuch as no names of witnesses had been given who have been threatened by the petitioner or who apprebend any assault at the hands of the petitioner and even names of the public persons have not been given to whom alarm and danger had been caused due to acts and movements of the petitioner. It was also pleaded that in most of the cases the petitioner has been acquitted so those cases could not be taken cognizance of for issuance of notice under Section 50 of the Act.

(3.) In the counter filed by the Additional Deputy Commissioner of Police concerned the averments of the petitioner have been controverted and it has been pleaded that the petitioner is a B.C, Bundle A of Police Station Mehrauli and she is a habitual offender and is engaged in the sale of narcotics and she has been indulging in these criminal activities since 1977 and that the S.H.O. of Police Station Mehrauli has put up the proposal dated 25th April, 1986 seeking her externment from Delhi for two years and that she being satisfied from the material placed before her thought it fit to start the proceedings against her under Section 47 of the Act. It was controverted that notice is bad in any manner. It was denied that notice has been issued in mala fide manner and it was also pleaded by her that the complaints made by the petitioners against the police whenever cases are registered against her have been examined and found to be false and baseless.