JAGDISH CHANDER BHATIA Vs. STATE
LAWS(DLH)-1983-5-7
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Decided on May 27,1983

JAGDISH CHANDER BHATIA Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF DELHI Respondents

JUDGEMENT

N.N. Goswamy, J. - (1.)The prayer in this petitioner under Section 397/482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is for quashing the proceedings pending against the petitioner before the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Patel Nagar, New Delhi including the notice dated 22-7-82 issued under Section 111 of the said code and for declaring the arrest of the petitioner as illegal and void.
(2.)It is alleged that the petitioner is running an eatable house under the name and style of M/s Hari om Corner, 18 Double Storey, New Rajinder Nagar, New Delhi and is also a licencee to stock kerosene oil for distribution to the customers registered with him. The petitioner is assisted oy his son, namely, Bharat Bhushan aged about 21 years. The petitioner has a brother by the name of Shri Lachman Dass with whom he had a long standing dispute over the moveable and immoveable properties worth Rs. 15 lacs and because of his influence he had wooed the Rajinder Nagar police in harassing and pressurising the petitioner in coming to a compromise with him. The police particularly Shri Asbok Kumar, S.I., had been making out false cases against the petitioner and he was involved in a large number of cases under various sections of the Indian Penal Code as also under Sections 107/151 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. However, all these cases ended in fiasco. The petitioner because of these cases passed an uneventfull period from December, 1977 to the middle of July, 1982. On 17-7-82 the petitioner's son Bharat Bhushan went to Dera Ismailkhan School for the purpose of receiving payment from the creditors. He was waylaid and assaulted by three persons, namely, Shila, Kirti and Dolloo. Those tnree persons by the use of force deprived him of a sum of Rs. 380'- which was in his pocket at that time. He want to the police station to register the case. The police, however, did not register it and the petitioner followed it up by a further complaint dated 18-7-82. No action was taken in spite further complaint to the higher officers on 18-7-82. The petitioner was watching his television on 21-7-82 at his house. It was about 8.30 p.m. when the police personnel swarmed into the residence of the petitioner without any notice and wanted the petitioner to accompany them to the police station. The petitioner who is a law abiding citizen, readily agreed and went to the police station. Ths reespondent No. 3 used abusive and filthy language in the presence of the ladies in the house of the petitioner. Ths petitioner told the respondents that whatever they wanted to do, they should do so in accordance with law and should not resort to abusing. Thereupon the petitioner was slapped by respondent No. 2 who asked his sub-ordinates to set the petitioner right. The petitioner was led to the police station. In the police station he heard the cries of some person who was being mercilessly beaten at about 9.00 p.m. Shri Ashok Hari SI, cams to the petitioner in the room where he was lodged and desired him to spsak in the presence of the relatives of that man that he was creating nuisance on the roadside. The petitioner expressed his inability to do so far the reason that he had not seen any such thing. Thereafter the respondent No. 3 looked the peticioner.in a cell. The relatives of the petitioner offered bail but the same was refused. The petitioner was not even allowed to take ths assistance of a lawyer. The grounds of arrest were also not supplied to the petitioner and he had to face abuses and filthy languages of the respondents.
(3.)Next morning the petitioner was produced before an executive magistrate-cum-assistant commissioner of police, Patel Nagar, New Delhi. The petitioner wanted to engage taxi but he was handcuffed and was duly paraded and taken to Patel Nagar police station where he was produced at about 12.30 p.m. The matter was kept in abeyance till the evening and the executive magistrate refused to pass the order on bail application on the ground that the jail authorities could not entertain the order of release of the petitioner on the hour. The executive magistrate, however, told the relatives of the petitioner that he would be bailed out on next morning. In spite of that the petitioner was not released till 24-7-82. After having been released, the petitioner's counsel inspected the record and discovered that the petitioner had been proceeded against under Sections 107/151 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for having allegedly interfered in the performanc.; of the official duty of the police officers who where to arrest one subhash Vij, who was allegdly creating nuisance on the roadside. The said Vij was released on bail on the same night while the petitioner wa-: detaine..l in police c.istody till 24-7-82. The proceedings under Sections 107/151, Code of Criminal Procedure have been challenged on various grounds. The main grounds being that there being sio allegation that the petitioner was likely to commit any cognizable offece, he could not be detained under Sections 151. It is alleged that the whole proceedings are mala fide, concocted and have been initiated only to harass the petitioner. It is also stated that the police had no power to arrest under Section 107/151 and the Assistant Commissioner of Police does not have any power to grant bail to the petitioner when arrested under Section 151. The petitioner should have been produced before the metropolitan magistrate who was competent to try the cognizable offence which the petitioner was designing to commit and was prevented from committing the offence.
;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.