REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS. 1585-1586   OF 2011 (Arising out of SLP(Crl.) Nos. 5998-5999 of 2008)

Ram Mehar Singh                        …  Appellant

Vs.

State of N.C.T. of Delhi & Ors.               …  Respondents

With

CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS.  1587-1588  OF 2011 (Arising out of SLP(Crl.) Nos. 6719-6720 of 2008)

J U D G M E N T

Dr. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.

1. Leave granted in all the cases.  

2. The criminal appeals arising out of S.L.P.(Crl.) Nos.5998-5999  

of 2008 have been filed against the common judgment and order dated  

28.5.2008  passed by the High Court of Delhi in L.P.A. Nos. 286/2008  

and  289/2008.  Though  the  matters  had  arisen  before  the  Division

Bench from different judgments of the Single Judge Bench, however,  

the same had been heard together and disposed of by the impugned  

judgment  and  in  all  these  cases,  the  Division  Bench  dismissed  the  

appeals  filed  by  the  State  of  N.C.T.  of  Delhi,  respondents  herein,  

against the judgments of the learned Single Judge dated 28.2.2008 in  

W.P. (Crl.) No. 1392 of 2007 and 25.2.2008 passed in W.P. (Crl.) No.  

2448 of 2006, wherein it has been alleged by the writ petitioners that  

the police authorities had misused their powers while resorting to the  

provisions  of  Sections  107/151 of  the  Code of  Criminal  Procedure,  

1973 (hereinafter called Cr.P.C.) and violated their fundamental rights.  

A learned Single Judge had quashed the criminal proceedings under  

Sections 107/151 Cr.P.C.; awarded a token compensation and further  

directed the Central Bureau of Investigation (hereinafter called CBI) to  

investigate  the  cases  against  the  police  officials  who  had  allegedly  

misused their powers, and directed the police administration to initiate  

proceedings  against such officials.   

3. Facts and circumstances giving rise to Criminal Appeals arising  

out of SLP (Crl.) Nos. 5998-5999 of 2008 are that there had been some  

dispute between one Shri Raj Kumar Bansal and his wife Smt. Urvashi  

Bansal.  The writ petitioner Shri Purshottam Ramnani being a family  

2

friend helped Smt. Urvashi Bansal financially by giving a huge amount  

of loan and as the same was not returned, dispute arose between them  

regarding the immovable properties. On the complaint of Smt. Urvashi  

Bansal, the proceedings under Sections 107/151 Cr.P.C. were initiated  

against the writ petitioner and in that respect he was produced before  

the  Special  Executive  Magistrate,  Jahangir  Puri,  Delhi  (hereinafter  

called  the  Magistrate)  on  25.8.2007,  wherein  he  was  released  on  

furnishing  personal  bond.  The  said  Shri  Purshottam  Ramnani  filed  

W.P.(Crl.) No. 1392 of 2007 on 31.10.2007 alleging that in case there  

was some dispute regarding the immovable property, the police could  

not resort to the provisions of Sections 107/151 Cr.P.C.,  and since he  

had  been  detained  in  jail  for  one  day,  there  was  violation  of  his  

fundamental rights, therefore, he should be awarded compensation and  

erring police officials be punished.  

4. The  writ  petition  was  heard  and  disposed  of  by  the  learned  

Single  Judge  vide  judgment  and  order  dated  28.2.2008 granting  all  

reliefs sought by the writ petitioner to the effect that proceedings under  

Sections 107/151 Cr.P.C. were quashed. The court held that the writ  

petitioner  was  illegally  detained  by invoking  provisions  of  Sections  

107/151 Cr.P.C. and the provisions of Section 145 Cr.P.C. could have  

3

been  invoked;   a  sum  of   Rs.50,000/-  was  awarded  as  token  

compensation.  The court further gave liberty to the said writ petitioner  

to file suits for damages for tortuous liability against the erring police  

officials  and  also  for  recovery  of  possession  of  the  immovable  

property.

 5. Being aggrieved,   the State of NCT of Delhi preferred L.P.A.  

No.286  of  2008  and  the  same  was  dismissed  by  the  impugned  

judgment and order dated 28.5.2008.  

6. The present appellant was SHO of the police station concerned at  

the relevant time.  Admittedly, in the writ petition he was not a party by  

name,  nor  any  notice  had  ever  been  issued  to  him and  he  had  no  

opportunity to defend himself. Even before the Division Bench in the  

L.P.A. filed by the State he was not impleaded as a party.  Thus, the  

relevant  submission  on  his  behalf  is  that  certain  observations  and  

directions  have  been  made  against  him  though  he  had  never  been  

heard.

7. Submission on behalf of the learned counsel for the contesting  

respondents has been that not giving an opportunity of hearing to the  

present appellant either before  the learned Single Judge or the Division  

4

Bench remains immaterial, for the reason, that he would be heard by  

the  concerned  authorities  during  the  disciplinary  proceedings  to  be  

initiated  in  pursuance  of  the  impugned  judgments  and  orders.  

However, there is no denial by him of the fact that the present appellant  

had neither been made a party by name nor he had been given any  

notice of  the proceedings and thus,  he had no opportunity  of  being  

heard.  The judgments of the courts below are based on the premises  

that instead of resorting to the provisions of Sections 107/151 Cr.P.C.  

the provisions of Section 145 Cr.P.C. could have been invoked in the  

present situation.

 8. In Criminal Appeals arising out of SLP (Crl.) Nos. 6719-6720 of  

2008, the facts had been that the appellant No.1-Sudesh Ranga  being  

the SHO of the  Police Station had received a complaint from Ashok  

Kumar  Munna,  the  respondent  herein  against  Keshav  Kumar,  

respondent No.2 that the water from his toilet had been entering into  

the house of the complainant and damaged  the entire wall because of  

seepage,  and  foul  smell  was  also  coming.  On  being  asked,  the  

respondent  Keshav  Kumar   refused  to  carry  out  the  repair  and  

quarrelled with him and beaten him. In view of the said complaint,  

Keshav  Kumar  was  detained  under  Sections  107/151  Cr.P.C.  on  

5

16.7.2006  and  was  produced  before  the  Magistrate  on  17.7.2006,  

wherein he was directed to be released on furnishing personal bond of  

Rs.5,000/- with one surety in the like amount. As he failed to furnish  

the personal bond he was sent to judicial custody and was released only  

on 18.7.2006 on furnishing the said bond.  Keshav Kumar filed writ  

petition on 30.10.2006 alleging the violation of his fundamental rights  

by  the  police  authorities  by  resorting  to  the  provisions  of  Sections  

107/151 Cr.P.C. The High Court entertained the said writ petition and  

asked the respondent  therein to submit  the  status  report.   The High  

Court  after  considering  the  same  disposed  of  the  writ  petition  vide  

order  dated  25.2.2008  quashing  the  proceedings  under  Sections  

107/151  Cr.P.C.;  directing  to  pay  a  token  compensation  to  the  

complainant to the tune of Rs.50,000/- and further direction was issued  

to  the  Commissioner  of  Police   to  initiate  disciplinary  proceedings  

against the appellants.  

9. Being aggrieved, the State of NCT of Delhi preferred L.P.A. No.  

289 of 2008 which has been dismissed vide impugned judgment and  

order dated 28.5.2008. Hence, these appeals.  

6

10. As both the matters had been disposed of by the Division Bench  

by  the  common  judgment,  we  have  heard  them together  alongwith  

other Criminal Appeals arising out of SLP (Crl) Nos. 1773 of 2008 and  

5702 of 2008 and are being disposed of by the common judgment.  

11. Whatever  may  be  the  legal  position,  admittedly,  the  police  

officials i.e.  appellants had not been impleaded by name in the writ  

petitions.  The standing counsel  appearing for the State  of N.C.T. of  

Delhi had taken notice on behalf  of the parties excluding the private  

parties. Thus, while hearing the writ petitions, these appellants had not  

been given an opportunity of hearing at all before the writ court and  

definitely  the  learned  Single  Judge  passed  certain  orders/directions  

against them.  

12. Being  aggrieved,  the  State  filed  L.P.As.  before  the  Division  

Bench wherein also none of these appellants had been impleaded and  

both the appeals stood dismissed by the common judgment and order  

dated  28.5.2008.  Thus,  even  before  the  Division  Bench,  all  these  

appellants had not been given any opportunity to appear or plead their  

defence.  Even on merit,  the opinion of the High Court in first case,  

that  the  proceedings  under  Section  145  Cr.P.C.  could  have  been  

7

resorted to instead of Sections 107/151 Cr.P.C. does not seem to be  

correct. In fact it is the officer on spot who has to take a decision as  

what  provisions  should  be  resorted  to  according  to  the  prevailing  

circumstances.   Even  in  another  case  if  there  had  been  altercation,  

abusing,  threatening  and  beating,  by  no  means,  it  can  be  held  that  

resorting  to  the  provisions  of  Sections  107/151  Cr.P.C.  was  totally  

unwarranted.   

13.     We have decided other connected appeals arising out of SLP  

(Crl.)  Nos.  1773  of  2008  and  5702  of  2008  giving  reasons.  These  

appeals stand disposed of in terms of the same.  In view of the above,  

the judgments and orders impugned herein are set aside except to the  

extent that in all these cases the proceedings under Sections 107/151  

Cr.P.C. stood quashed. In first case liberty given by the High Court  to  

file a civil suit for recovery of immovable property shall remain intact.

    …………………………. J.         (P.  SATHASIVAM)

     ………………………….J.                     (Dr. B.S. CHAUHAN)

New Delhi, August 12, 2011

8

9