LAWS(DLH)-2009-10-331

GAJRAJ SINGH Vs. GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

Decided On October 12, 2009
GAJRAJ SINGH Appellant
V/S
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present writ petition has been filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India r/w Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking issuance of appropriate writ quashing the impugned order dated 16.07.2008 passed by Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate. in FIR No. 182/2008 registered at P.S. I.P. Estate and impugned order dated 17.07.2008 in DD No. 6 -A recorded at P.S. I.P. Estate; impugned order dated 18.07.2008 passed by Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate in FIR No. 188/2008 registered at P.S. I.P. Estate and directions against Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate not to issue directions in exercise of his judicial functions for initiation of departmental proceedings against the petitioner.

(2.) PURSUANT to the directions given by this Court Commissioner of Police has filed an affidavit. In the affidavit filed by the Commissioner of Police it has been stated as follows:

(3.) THAT as per the order dated 18/07/08 in case FIR No. 188/08 under Section 379 IPC P.S. I.P. Estate, an explanation of Inspector Gajraj Singh and H.C. Ravinder Kumar, No. 441/C was called by DCP/Central vide his office No. XVI/08/6057/HAP/AC -I/C dated 27.08.08 that they were found not cautious towards performing their official duties. On 22/01/09, a recorded warning was issued to HC Ravindr Kumar, No. 441/C vide order No. E/103/08/512 -514/HAP/AC -I/C dated 27.08.08 that they were found not cautious towards performing their official duties. On 22/01/09, a recorded warning was issued to HC Ravinder Kumar, No. 441/C vide order No. E/103/08/512 -514/HAP/AC -I/C. However, in the mean time Inspt. Gajraj Singh was transferred to IGI Airport. Accordingly, the file of his explanation was sent to DCP/IGI Airport for taking further necessary action. A report in this respect was filed in the court of Sh. Pulastya Pramachala, Ld. M.M., Tis Hazari Court on 02/09/08. It is respectfully submitted that no further actions in this regard were taken as the aforesaid order was stayed by this Hon 'ble Court vide its order dated 04/09/08. (Copy of explanation and copy of warning are annexed herewith and marked as Annexure -R -5, R -6 and R -7 respectively)