Delhi District Court
Shri Surender Singh @ Kinnu vs The Sho on 20 November, 2014
IN THE COURT OF SH. RAMESH KUMAR
ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE, (CENTRAL) 04,
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
CS No. 116/10
SHRI SURENDER SINGH @ KINNU
SON OF SHRI BALBIR SINGH
R/O S-166, WARD NO. 3,
MEHRAULI, NEW DELHI-110030
............... PLAINTIFF.
V/s
1. THE SHO,
P.S. MEHRAULI,
NEW DELHI-110030
2. HC RAJENDER SINGH NO. 89/SD
PS MEHRAULI,
NEW DELHI-110030
3. THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE,
PHQ, MSO BUILDING,
IP ESTATE, NEW DELHI-110001
4. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF POLICE (SOUTH)
PS HAUZ KHAS, NEW DELHI-110016
...............DEFENDANTS.
DATE OF INSTITUTION :15.10.2005
DATE OF ARGUMENTS :16.10.2014
DATE OF JUDGMENT :20.11.2014.
(SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF DAMAGES OF RS.5,00,000/- ( RUPEES
FIVE LAKHS ONLY) AGAINST THE DEFENDANTS NO. 1 & 2 UNDER THE
GENERAL LAW )
JUDGMENT
By this judgment, I shall dispose of suit, entitled as, Surender Singh Vs. The SHO, PS Mehrauli etc, bearing Suit no.116/109. The present suit has been filed for the recovery of damages of Rs. Five Lakhs against the defendants no. 1 and2. It has been prayed that a decree of Rs.5,00,000/- ( Rs. Five Lakhs) with interest @ 24% per annum from the date of filing of the present suit till its realization, be passed, in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants 1 and 2 severally and jointly.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff is residing at S-166, Ward No. 3, Mehrauli, New Delhi -110030 along with other members of his family and he has been gainfully employed and also dealing in the profession of milk dairy. It is further the case of the plaintiff that defendant no.1 is the Station House Officer of PS Mehrauli, whereas the defendant no. 2 is the subordinate officer working under the directions of defendant no. 1. It is further the case of the plaintiff that he was taken into custody in a false and frivolous case vide FIR No. 172/89 under section 379/411/34 IPC PS Mehrauli, Delhi by the defendants no.1 and 2 without any cogent reasons, certainly, due to ulterior motives and with malafide intentions. It is further the case of the plaintiff that, after going through the entire evidence and the material on record, ld. Trial Court passed an order of acquittal, in favour of the plaintiff, in view of the testimony of the prosecution witnesses. It is further the case of the plaintiff that he was made to suffer and face the trial in the said bogus criminal case, cooked up by the defendants no. 1 and 2, since the year 1998 to the last quarter of 2004 and, resultantly, during the course of said period of five and a half years. It is further the case of the plaintiff that he had suffered humiliation in the society and was dubbed as a thief with no prospectus for any advancement in any field of the civilized society. It is further the case of the plaintiff that he had to incur a huge sum in order to be released on bail and to be defended in the said trial apart from the other expenses incurred by him during the trial. It is further the case of the plaintiff that in these circumstances his reputation was lowered to this extent that the relatives, the close friends and the near dears started avoiding him under one or the other pretext because of the pendency of the above mentioned case. It is further the case of the plaintiff that he had already complied with the statutory provisions of serving the defendants no.1 and 2 with a legal notice under section 140 (2) of the Delhi Police Act ( Act No. 34 of 1978) with copies to the defendants no. 3 and 4 for the crime committed by the defendant no. 1 and 2. It is further the case of the plaintiff that, despite service of the said legal notice upon the defendants no. 1 and 2 and even after the expiry of the statutory period of one month, the defendants no.1 and 2 have failed to pay or tender severally and jointly the said amount in the sum of Rs Ten lakhs only to the plaintiff till date and the plaintiff is now claiming Rs.5,00,000/- as damages under the General Law of Tort, irrespective of his aforesaid legal notice sent and served upon the defendants. It is further the case of the plaintiff that he had affixed the required court fees for the purpose of valuation and jurisdiction. It is further the case of the plaintiff that the required legal notice was served upon the defendants no. 1 and 2 within the period of limitation and, in these circumstances, he had complied with the statutory requirements as laid down under section 140 of D. P. Act, 1978. It has been prayed that that suit be decreed as prayed for by the plaintiff, in his favour and against the defendants.
3) In the Written Statement filed on behalf of the defendants, it is the case of the defendant that the present suit is not maintainable in the eyes of law and the same deserves dismissal with costs. It is further the case of the defendants that the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable, in view of the facts that no proper notice under section 140 of the Delhi Police Act had been served by the plaintiff to the defendants before filing the present suit and, thus, in the absence of the above stated mandatory notice under section 140 of the Delhi Police Act, the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable in the eyes of law. It is further the case of the defendants that even no notice under section 80 of the CPC has been given by the plaintiff to the defendant before filing the present suit and, hence, the present suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable. It is further the case of the defendants that the plaintiff has no cause of action of any kind, whatsoever, for filing the present suit against the defendants and thus, the suit of the plaintiff be rejected/dismissed Under Section 7 Rule 11 of CPC. It is further the case of the defendants that the suit of the plaintiff is otherwise hit by the provisions of Section 41 of Specific Relief Act. It is further the case of the defendants that the plaintiff has got no locus standi to file the present suit against the defendants. It is further the case of the defendants that they (defendant no.1 and 2) have acted in the good faith, under the colour of their duty, without any malafide intention, therefore, they cannot be held guilty of any wrong. It has been prayed that the present suit be dismissed with costs.
4). Replication to the written statement of defendants had been filed. In the replication, the plaintiff reiterated the facts as mentioned in the plaint.
5) During the course of the proceedings, all the four defendants were proceeded ex parte by ld. Predecessor of this court, vide order sheet, dated 26.11.2010.
6). In the present matter, plaintiff, Shri Surender Singh, examined himself, as PW1, Shri Tek Ram as PW2 and Constable Ajit as PW3. PW1, Shri Surender Singh tendered his evidence by way of affidavit. The same is ExtPW1/A which bears his signature at point A and B. He relied upon the documents which are Ext.PW1/A to Ext.PW1/L and marked A to D.
7) PW2, Shri Tek Ram, tendered his evidence by way of affidavit. The same is Ext.PW2/1 bearing his signature at point A and B. He deposed that the contents of the affidavit are true and correct.
8) PW3, Constable Ajit, had deposed that he is a summoned witness. He further deposed that he has brought the summoned record i.e. DD Register, containing DD Entry no. 46-B, dated 14.07.2006, PS Mehrauli, under section 107/151 Cr.P.C. He further deposed that copy of the same is Ext.PW3/A.
9) On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed, by ld. Predecessor of this court, for consideration.-
(i) Whether the suit is not maintainable for want of proper notice U/s 140 of Delhi Police Act ?OPD.
(ii) Whether the suit is not maintainable due to non-
service of notice under section 80 CPC?OPD.
(iii) Whether the suit has been filed without any cause of action?OPD.
(iv) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the recovery of damages of Rs.5,00,000/- from the defendant no. 1 and 2?OPD.
(v) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to interest, if yes, at what rate and from when?OPP.
(vi) Relief. 10) It has been contended by ld. Counsel for the plaintiff that he has
proved its case. It has further been contended that defendant no.1 is the Station House Officer, of PS Mehrauli, whereas the defendant no. 2 is the subordinate officer working under the directions of defendant no. 1. It has further been contended that the plaintiff was taken into custody in a false and frivolous case, vide FIR No. 172/89, under section 379/411/34 IPC, PS Mehrauli, Delhi by the defendants no.1 and 2 without any cogent reasons, certainly, due to ulterior motives and with malafide intentions. It has further been contended that later on he was acquitted in that case. It has further been contended that the plaintiff was made to suffer and face the trial in the said bogus criminal case for the period of five and a half years. It has further been contended that the plaintiff had suffered humiliation in the society. It has further been contended that he had to incur a huge sum during the trial. It has further been contended that, in these circumstances, his reputation was lowered to the extent that the relatives, the close friends and the near dears started avoiding him under one or the other pretext because of the pendency of the above mentioned case. It has further been contended that the plaintiff had already complied with the statutory provisions of Delhi Police Act (Act No. 34 of 1978) by serving the defendants no.1 and 2 with a legal notice under section 140 (2) of the Delhi Police Act ( Act No. 34 of 1978) with copies to the defendants no. 3 and 4 for the crime committed by the defendant no. 1 and 2. It has further been contended that, despite service of the said legal notice upon the defendants no. 1 and 2 and even after the expiry of the statutory period of one month, the defendants no.1 ands 2 have failed to pay any heed towards the plaintiff. It has further been contended that suit has been properly valued. It has been prayed that the suit be decreed with interest as well as with costs, in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant, as prayed for by the plaintiff.
11). On the other hand, it has been the case of the defendants that, the present suit has been filed just to harass the defendants. It has further been the case of the defendants that, present suit is not maintainable in the eyes of law as the plaintiff has deliberately and intentionally relied upon the false and fabricated facts and circumstances and had suppressed the true contents in the suit. It has been the case of the defendants that, no cause of action arose in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants. It has further been the case of the defendants that, plaintiff is not entitled to any amount and for any interest. It is further stated on behalf of the defendants that the present suit is based on concocted facts and misrepresentation and, is infact, an abuse of process of the Court. It has further been the case of the defendants that, suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable, in view of the facts that no proper notice, under section 140 of the Delhi Police Act, had been served by the plaintiff to the defendants before filing the present suit, and thus, in the absence of the above stated mandatory notice, under section 140 of the Delhi Police Act, the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable in the eyes of law. It has further been the case of the defendants that, even no notice under section 80 of the CPC, has been given by the plaintiff to the defendant before filing the present suit and, hence, the present suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable. It has been the case of the defendants that, plaintiff has no cause of action of any kind, whatsoever, for filing the present suit against the defendants and thus, the suit of the plaintiff be rejected/dismissed Under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC. It has further been the case of the defendants that, suit of the plaintiff is, otherwise, hit by the provisions of Section 41 of Specific Relief Act. It has further been the case of the defendants that, plaintiff has got no locus standi to file the present suit against the defendants. It has been prayed that the present suit be dismissed with costs.
12) I have heard the arguments on behalf of both the parties and have gone through the record file carefully.
13) My issue wise findings are as under-
Issue no. (1) and issue no.(2) taken up together.
Issue no. (1) Whether the suit is not maintainable for want of proper notice U/s 140 of Delhi Police Act ?OPD.
Issue no.(2) Whether the suit is not maintainable due to non-
service of notice under section 80 CPC?OPD.
In the present matter, legal notice under section 140 of the Delhi Police Act has been exhibited as Ext.PW1/J. Since, no rebuttal evidence was produced on behalf of the defendants, service of the legal notice under section 140 of the Delhi Police Act has been proved. Hence, issue no.1 is decided, in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants. There is nothing on the record file to show that notice under section 80 CPC was served upon the defendants. In view of these facts, the plaintiff has not been able to prove the service of legal notice under section 80 of the CPC. The issue no. 2 is decided in favour of the defendants and against the plaintiff.
14) Issue no.(3)
Whether the suit has been filed without any cause
of action?OPD.
In the present matter, there is no material in the evidence of PW1 and PW2 that the plaintiff was having any cause of action to file the present suit. Mere acquittal in a criminal trial does not denote the fact that prosecution was false. Plaintiff has not been able to prove any material on the basis of which it can be held that he was prosecuted in a false case. Hence, he is not having any cause of action, in his favour to file the present suit. Hence, this issue no. 3 is decided in favour of the defendants and against the plaintiff.
15) Issue no. (4) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the recovery of damages of Rs.5,00,000/- from the defendant no. 1 and 2?OPD.
In the present matter, as per the evidence of PW1 Shri Surender Singh, he was taken into custody in a false and frivolous case, vide FIR No. 172/98, under section 379/411/34 IPC, PS Mehrauli, New Delhi by the defendants no. 1 and 2. Vide para 5 of the said affidavit, it has been stated that a false report under section 173 Cr.P.C. was filed against him. Vide para 6 of the said affidavit, it has been stated that charge was framed against him. Further, vide para 7 of the said affidavit, it has been stated that, after going through the entire evidence and the material on record, ld. Trial Court had acquitted the accused/plaintiff. Thus, it is clear from the aforesaid affidavit filed by the plaintiff that he had undergone trial in case FIR No. 172/98, under section 379/411/34 IPC, PS Mehrauli, New Delhi. The prosecution evidence was recorded and lateron, the ld. Trial Court had acquitted the accused/plaintiff. It will not be out of place to mention that mere acquittal in a trial does not mean that defendants no. 1 and 2 had falsely implicated the accused/plaintiff in case FIR No. 172/98, under section 379/411/34 IPC, PS Mehrauli, New Delhi. There is nothing on the record file to show that the prosecution of the accused/plaintiff in case FIR No. 172/98, under section 379/411/34 IPC, PS Mehrauli, New Delhi was based on no material or on false and bogus prosecution witnesses. The plaintiff has not bee able to establish any material on the record file to the effect that there was any ulterior motive or malafide intention on the part of the defendants no. 1 and 2. Further, the evidence of PW2 and PW3 does not prove the case, on behalf of the plaintiff, to the there was false prosecution of the accused, on the part of the defendant no. 1 and
2. In view of these facts, the plaintiff is not entitled for the recovery of damages of Rs. 5,00,000/- from the defendants no. 1 and 2.
16) Issue no.(5) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to interest, if yes, at what rate and from when?OPP.
In the present matter, the plaintiff has failed to prove its case. Hence, he is not entitled to any interest. This issue is also decided in favour of the defendants and against the plaintiff.
17) Relief.
In view of the above discussions, I am of the considered view that the plaintiff has not been able to prove its case. The suit of the plaintiff deserves to be dismissed. Accordingly, the suit of the plaintiff is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.
Decree sheet be prepared, accordingly. File be consigned to record room.
Announced in the open Court (RAMESH KUMAR)
today i.e. 20.11.2014 ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI