Delhi District Court
Smt. Vaishali Maitray vs The State (Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi) on 6 October, 2021
IN THE COURT OF SH. SANJAY SHARMA-II : ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE-03,
(CENTRAL): TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
Criminal Revision No. 145/2021
CNR No.: DLCT01-010618-2021
Smt. Vaishali Maitray
W/o Sh. Rahul Bhardwaj @ Chandan Kumar
R/o H. No. 2259, Ground Floor, Hudson Lane,
GTB Nagar, Delhi-110009
..... Petitioner
VERSUS
The State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)
..... Respondent
Date of Institution : 26.08.2021
Date of Arguments : 17.09.2021
Date of Order : 06.10.2021
ORDER
1. The criminal revision petition under Section 397 of 'The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973' (Hereinafter referred to as 'the Cr.PC') is directed against order dated 12.07.2021 in File No. 103/2021 titled as 'State vs. Vaishali' arising from kalandra vide DD No. 67A under Section 107/150 of the Cr.P.C. registered at PS Burari whereby Special Executive Magistrate (SEM), North District, Delhi issued notice to the petitioner under Section 107/111 of the Cr.P.C. directing her to appear before him and show cause why she should not be directed to execute a bond in a sum of Rs. 30,000/- with one surety in the like amount for keeping peace for a period of one year.
Cr. Rev. No. 145/2021 Vaishali Maitray vs. State Page No. 1 of 20 DD NO. 24A:
2. On 15.06.2021 at 08:36:56 hours, a PCR call was received at PS Burari that caller stated that her husband assaults her vide DD No. 24A. The said DD was assigned to ASI Sukh Veer Singh Talan for appropriate action. KALANDRA:
3. On 23.06.2021 at 12:22:18 hrs, ASI Sukh Veer Singh Talan recorded GD No. 67A at PS Burari on the subject 'Arrival and information for action under Section 107/150 of the Cr.PC', as under:
"At this time, I have returned to the police station after enquiry. The facts are that on 15.06.2021 (wrongly recorded as 24.06.2021), I received a PCR call vide DD No. 24A regarding quarrel. I reached at the given address where I met the complainant, namely, Vaishali. I conducted enquiry regarding the quarrel.
On enquiry, I came to know that the complainant, namely, Vaishali W/o Sh. Chandan Kumar R/o H. No. 308, Gali No. 6, E-2, Block Pradhan Enclave, Burari, Delhi, Age 29 years, did love marriage with Chandan Kumar before 5 years. Chandan Kumar and Vaishali were earlier running a PG. Due to lockdown, PG is closed since one year. Both of them are unemployed. They frequently quarrel with each other on the issue of household expenses and other matters. The complainant, namely, Vaishali said that her husband, namely, Chandan Kumar assaults her after consuming liquor and he threatens to kill her and her son. She is under constant fear from her husband. She is not able to work on account of fear. The complainant has also made a written complaint against her husband that she and her son are apprehending that her husband may not assault them and legal action be taken against them.
Cr. Rev. No. 145/2021 Vaishali Maitray vs. State Page No. 2 of 20 Thereafter, I made enquiry regarding the quarrel from the complainant's husband, namely, Chandan Kumar S/o Sh. Shri Ram Chhabila R/o H. No. 308, Gali No. 6, E-2, Block Pradhan Enclave, Burari, Delhi, Age 30 years, who stated that he did love marriage with Vaishali in the year 2016 and they were running PG which was closed due to lockdown and thereafter, his wife quarrels with him regularly on one or other issue and she threatened him that she will get him assaulted from her brothers. Earlier also, Vaishali assaulted him after calling her family members. Vaishali has left his son in her maternal home in Tatiri, Baghpat, U.P. On 14.06.2021, it was birthday of his son and they had cut a cake and thereafter, his wife started quarrelling with him and threatened to get him beaten from her brothers and for that reason, he is living under constant fear. He apprehends that his wife may call her brothers and his friends for assaulting him or she may get him implicated in any case. He has given a written complaint in this regard in PS Burari and legal action be taken against them.
Both parties regularly make allegations and counter allegations against each other and for that reason, there is serious tension between both the parties and they may quarrel with each other at any time and there is danger to general peace. I apprised the facts to SHO who discussed with ACP and thereafter, he directed me to initiate proceedings against both the parties under Section 107/150 of the Cr.PC. I have conducted proceedings under Section 107/150 of the Cr.PC against both the parties. If I had not initiated proceedings under Section 107/150 Cr.PC against both the parties, they would have committed a cognizable offence. I request the Hon'ble Court that both the parties be bound down on a very heavy amount so that they may not quarrel with each other and breach the peace. I request the Hon'ble Court that the said parties be bound down on a heavy amount. I have stated the facts to SHO. The report is recorded in CCTNS."
Cr. Rev. No. 145/2021 Vaishali Maitray vs. State Page No. 3 of 20 STATEMENT OF ASI SUKH VEER SINGH TALAN:
4. On 12.07.2021, SEM, North District, Delhi recorded statement of ASI Sukh Veer Singh Talan No. 227/N, PS Burari, Delhi (Mob. No. 9868341723), as under:
"Stated that I am posted as ASI in PS Burari. On 15.06.2021, I reached at the given address at H. No. 308, Gali No. 6, E-2, Block Pradhan Enclave, Burari, Delhi on receipt of PCR call regarding quarrel where the complainant, namely, Vaishali had hot exchange on domestic issues. At that time, both the parties were pacified. Thereafter, the complainant, namely, Vaishali made complaint against her husband and Chandan Kumar made complaint against his wife, namely, Vaishali in police station. I discussed the said matter with SHO who directed me to initiate proceedings against Vaishali and Chandan Kumar under Section 107/150 of the Cr.PC after discussion with ACP. I conducted the proceedings under Section 107/150 of the Cr.PC against both of them. You have recorded my statement. I have heard it. It is correct."
THE IMPUGNED ORDER:
5. On 12.07.2021, Sh. Veer Singh, Special Executive Magistrate, North District, Delhi summoned the petitioner, as under:
"On July 12, 2021 SHO, Burari, has filed this kalandra u/s 107/151 Cr.P.C. against the respondents Vaishali as party first & Chandan Kumar as second party. Matter relates to dispute over petty type of issues. Both parties apprehend danger to their lives from each other. There is apprehension of breach of peace and disturbance to public tranquility from their prevailing activities. IO present and statement recorded on file. After carefully going through the contents of kalandra, other relevant documents on record. I have come to the conclusion that above respondents can commit breach of peace and disturb public tranquility. There are sufficient grounds to initiate proceedings.
Cr. Rev. No. 145/2021 Vaishali Maitray vs. State Page No. 4 of 20 I, therefore, ordered that notices u/s 107/111 Cr.P.C. be sent to all respondents asking them to show cause why they should not be ordered to execute personal bonds in the sum of Rs. 30,000/- each with one surety each in the like amount for keeping peace till the conclusion of the proceedings. Issued summons alongwith notices u/s 107/111 Cr.P.C. for appearance on July 29, 2021."
NOTICE UNDER SECTION 107/111 CR.PC:
6. Notice under Section 107/111 of the Cr.PC issued by SEM, North District, Delhi is as under:
"NOTICE U/S 107/111 CR.P.C. Whereas it has been made to appear before me by reliable information and report through SHO, Burari filed by ASI Sukhvir Singh that you have inimical terms with Chandan Kumar which is other party, matter relates to dispute over petty type of issues. You also threatened other party for dire consequences on and likely to cause breach of peace.
It has been alleged that there is very serious tension between you and other party and are likely to do a wrongful act which may result in the breach of peace within the local limit in my jurisdiction and I am satisfied from the police report that there are sufficient grounds for initiating proceedings against you.
Therefore, I Sh. Veersingh, Special Executive Magistrate, North District, Delhi, do hereby require you to appear in the Court on 29.07.2021 at 02.00 p.m. and show cause why you should not be bound with a sum of Rs. 30,000/- with one surety in the like amount for keeping peace for a period of one year. Given under my seal of this Court on 12.07.2021."
Cr. Rev. No. 145/2021 Vaishali Maitray vs. State Page No. 5 of 20 GROUNDS OF APPEAL:
7. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned order, the petitioner preferred the criminal revision petition on the grounds, as under:
(a) The impugned order is neither sustainable nor maintainable as the petitioner is a victim in the hands of her husband;
(b) The petitioner has already made complaint against her husband and in-laws before CAW Cell, Tatiri Baghpat, U.P.;
(c) Instead of lodging the FIR on the complaint of the petitioner against her husband and his friend, IO conspired with her husband and falsely implicated her in this case. However, with the intervention of DCP, an FIR No. 473/2021 was lodged on 24.06.2021; and
(d) IO intentionally implicated the petitioner in the above said kalandra because she dared to make tweets to the Commissioner of Police as well as DCP concerned and just after making the tweets on 22.06.2021 at 07.51 p.m., IO on the next day implicated the petitioner in the kalandra with wrong allegation that the petitioner breached the peace of the locality."
APPEARANCE:
8. I have heard arguments of Mr. Anant Deep Thakur, Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Amit Dabas, Ld. Addl. PP for the State / the respondent and carefully examined the trial Court record.
THE CONTENTIONS OF THE PETITIONER:
9. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner contended that there are matrimonial issues between the petitioner and her husband and in-laws.
Cr. Rev. No. 145/2021 Vaishali Maitray vs. State Page No. 6 of 20
10. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner was subjected to physical and mental cruelty by her husband and in-laws and in that regard, she has already filed a complaint before Woman Cell, Tatiri, Baghpat, U.P. He contended that the petitioner's husband and his friend beaten the petitioner and in that regard, the petitioner filed a complaint with PS Burari. He contended that local police had not taken any action on the complaint of the petitioner. He contended that the petitioner's brother made calls to IO in that regard and thereafter, the petitioner tweeted her grievance to DCP (North) and Commissioner of Police on 22.06.2021 at 07.51 p.m. He contended that with the intervention of DCP (North), IO and Insp. Neena, Subzi Mandi called the petitioner to the police station and assured that appropriate action will be taken on her complaint. He contended that in the meantime, SHO, PS Burari lodged a kalandra under Section 107/150 of the Cr.PC against the petitioner vide DD No. 67A dated 26.06.2021. He contended that SEM, North District, Delhi summoned the petitioner vide notice dated 12.07.2021. He contended that the impugned order is an arbitrary, illegal and unreasonable. He contended that the petitioner is a victim of domestic violence and criminal acts committed by her husband and in-laws. He contended that local police implicated her in this case in connivance with her husband instead of taking action on her complaint. He contended that an FIR No. 473/2021 was lodged on the complaint of the petitioner on 24.06.2021.
Cr. Rev. No. 145/2021 Vaishali Maitray vs. State Page No. 7 of 20
11. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner contended that such a drastic action under the preventive powers of police is not warranted in case of domestic issues. He contended that there was no occasion of any breach of peace or disturbance of public tranquillity. He contended that there was no credible material before the police for forming an opinion of proceeding against the petitioner under Section 107/150 of the Cr.PC. He contended that the trial Court acted in a most mechanical, arbitrary and unjust manner in taking cognizance of the kalandra and summoning the petitioner. He contended that the trial Court had no material before it for proceeding under Section 107/150 of the Cr.PC. He contended that the impugned order would occasion injustice, if it is not set-aside. He contended that the kalandra was an outcome of the tweets made by the petitioner to DCP (North) and the Commissioner of Police regarding her grievance. He contended that the police acted in vindictive manner and abused its powers in proceeding under Section 107/150 of the Cr.PC. He prayed for setting-aside of the impugned order.
THE CONTENTIONS OF THE RESPONDENT / THE STATE:
12. Ld. Addl. PP for the State contended that there is no infirmity in the impugned order. He contended that IO ASI Sukh Veer Singh had visited place of incident and the petitioner as well as her husband were making serious allegations against each other. He contended that IO did not commit any error in forming opinion that there could be breach of peace.
Cr. Rev. No. 145/2021 Vaishali Maitray vs. State Page No. 8 of 20 STATUTORY PROVISIONS:
13. The sections relevant to the subject matter of the petition are as under:
"107. Security for keeping the peace in other cases.- (1) When an Executive Magistrate receives information that any person is likely to commit a breach of the peace or disturb the public tranquillity or to do any wrongful act that may probably occasion a breach of the peace or disturb the public tranquillity and is of opinion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding, he may, in the manner hereinafter provided, require such person to show cause why he should not be ordered to execute a bond [with or without sureties] for keeping the peace for such period, not exceeding one year, as the Magistrate thinks fit.
(2) Proceedings under this section may be taken before any Executive Magistrate when either the place where the breach of the peace or disturbance is apprehended is within his local jurisdiction or there is within such jurisdiction a person who is likely to commit a breach of the peace or disturb the public tranquillity or to do any wrongful act as aforesaid beyond such jurisdiction.
111. Order to be made.- When a Magistrate acting under Section 107, Section 108, Section 109 or Section 110, deems it necessary to require any person to show cause under such section, he shall make an order in writing, setting forth the substance of the information received, the amount of the bond to be executed, the term for which it is to be in force, and the number, character and class of sureties (if any) required."
Cr. Rev. No. 145/2021 Vaishali Maitray vs. State Page No. 9 of 20 JUDICIAL PRECEDENT:
14. In Madhu Limaye vs. Sub-divisional Magistrate, Monghyr & Ors., (1970) 3 SCC 746, Hon'ble Supreme Court of India considered scope of Section 107 of the Cr.PC, as under:
"33. The section is aimed at persons who cause a reasonable apprehension of conduct likely to lead to a breach of the peace or disturbance of the public tranquillity. This is an instance of preventive justice which the Courts are intended to administer. This provision like the preceding one is in aid of orderly society and seeks to nip in the bud conduct subversive of the peace and public tranquillity. For this purpose Magistrates are invested with large judicial discretionary powers for the preservation of public peace and order.....
35. We have seen the provisions of Section 107. That section says that action is to be taken 'in the manner hereinafter provided' and this clearly indicates that it is not open to a Magistrate in such a case to depart from the procedure to any substantial extent. This is very salutary because the liberty of the person is involved and the law is rightly solicitous, that this liberty should only be curtailed according to its own procedure and not according to the whim of the Magistrate concerned....."
15. In Sana Nadim Pawaskar & Anr. vs. State of Maharashtra, 2003 SCC OnLine Bombay 168, Hon'ble High Court of Bombay had the occasion to consider an identical issue, as under:
"3. Whenever, a Magistrate decides to issue a notice in view of provisions of Section 111 of the Code, he has to given sufficient idea to the petitioner for knowing the exact nature of apprehension, which is lingering in the mind of the Magistrate in respect of the possibility of breach of public peace. Those instances should be, serious enough to really cause a threat to the public tranquillity.
Cr. Rev. No. 145/2021 Vaishali Maitray vs. State Page No. 10 of 20 Domestic quarrels are common with human beings, because, on account of conflict of personalities, there are bound to be bickerings and disputes. Those disputes can be settled in the domestic domain and they generally do not cause any danger to the public peace as such.
4. In the present case, the two instances which have been quoted are petty matters and they show by themselves that they are nothing but domestic differences of opinion. The learned Magistrate has also apprehension that on account of inter - religion marriage between both the petitioners, there would be breach of public peace. It appears to be a timid apprehension. Unless there are compelling grounds and unless there is sufficient material on record to justify such apprehension, the Magistrate should not take any cognizance of the inter religion marriage by itself as a ground for breach of public peace..... While issuing a notice under Section 111 of the Code, the Magistrate is obliged to a judicial performance as the said act is judicial work and therefore, he has to apply judicial mind and such order should not be issued, as if they are outcome of mechanical process.
5. As the learned Magistrate has not followed the spirit of provisions of Chapter VIII of the Code, the order which has been assailed will have to be set- aside. Thus, petition stands allowed....."
16. In Christalin Costa (Smt.) & Ors. vs. State of Goa & Ors., 1992 SCC OnLine Bom 252; Hon'ble Bombay High Court was dealing with a matter pertaining to initiation of proceedings under Section 107 of the Cr.PC against the neighbours. Their relations were quite strained and there were constant quarrels on account of which police complaints and counter complaints were lodged by both the parties. While the proceedings under Section 107 of the Cr.PC were pending, another complaint was lodged leading to initiation of fresh proceedings under Section 107 of the Cr.PC.
Cr. Rev. No. 145/2021 Vaishali Maitray vs. State Page No. 11 of 20
17. In the said case, Hon'ble High Court of Bombay held as under:
"7.....Obviously when there are quarrels between two private individuals it appears that this situation is not contemplated by these legal provisions. Quarrels between individuals are not normally creating any problem of public order and at the most it may lead to a problem of law and order to be dealt with by the appropriate penal law. Proceedings under Section 107 are always dealing with preventive measures to be taken by the Magistrates in order to pre-empt any possibility of breach of peace and disturbance of public tranquillity. In the case of Jayant D. Shah v. State of Maharashtra, (1986) 1 Crimes 405, this Court has held that the provisions of Sections 107 to 110 cannot be used or exercised for satisfying private vendetta of a querulous person and the exercise of powers by the Magistrate under the aforesaid sections on the basis of incidents involving trivial quarrels without application of mind would amount to gross abuse of the process of law."
18. In Perswami Kandswami Devendra & Anr. vs. Sr. Inspector of Police, Mumbai & Ors., 2003 SCC OnLine Bom 251, the petitioners were father and son. They challenged show cause notice issued by SEM, Matunga, Mumbai under Section 111 of the Cr.PC for taking action under Section 107 of the Cr.PC. Hon'ble High Court of Bombay held as under:
"6. Domestic quarrels, petty quarrels between neighbouring persons which do not have long life are not the subject matters of the actions to be taken in view of Section 107 of the Code. The energy and time of public servant concerned should not be wasted in such trifling matters or for satisfying the personal vendetta or for the purpose of giving lessons to each other."
Cr. Rev. No. 145/2021 Vaishali Maitray vs. State Page No. 12 of 20 Whether there was credible information that the petitioner was likely to commit a breach of the peace or disturb the public tranquillity as required under Section 107 Cr.PC?
19. The petitioner had marital discord with her husband, namely, Chandan Kumar. IO has also mentioned this fact in kalandra that the petitioner and her husband are unemployed and they used to quarrel with each other on the issue of household expenses and other matters.
20. As already noted above, such preventive power should not be exercised in case of normal domestic quarrels or marital discord between the spouses. This power should not be invoked in such petty issues, domestic quarrels or marital differences. Such issues do not cause any threat to peace or disturb the public tranquillity.
21. IO ASI Sukh Veer Singh had visited the matrimonial home of the petitioner on receipt of DD No. 24A on 15.06.2021. He did not file the said DD No. 24A alongwith kalandra before the Court of SEM, North District, Delhi. He had not recorded statement of the petitioner and her husband on 15.06.2021 either at the place of incident or in police station. He did not make any arrival entry in police station. He did not reduce the substance of the proceedings conducted by him at the place of incident in general diary on 15.06.2021. PCR call detail dated 15.06.2021 states that the petitioner had hot exchange with her husband on domestic matters and the petitioner alongwith her brother went to her parental house.
Cr. Rev. No. 145/2021 Vaishali Maitray vs. State Page No. 13 of 20
22. On 23.06.2021, after 7 days, IO ASI Sukh Veer Singh initiated proceedings under Section 107/150 of the Cr.PC. The statements mentioned in kalandra vide GD No. 67A dated 23.06.2021 were never recorded by him. This Court is not able to understand as to the source of said statements. As regards complaint dated 15.06.2021 made by the petitioner against her husband regarding physical assault is concerned, it is noted that FIR No. 473/2021 was lodged on 24.06.2021 in that regard. Mere fact that the petitioner made a written complaint on 15.06.2021 to PS Burari cannot be considered as a credible information for apprehending breach of peace. Taking recourse to the statutory authorities for redressal of grievance cannot be a ground to apprehend breach of peace. A person cannot be punished for lodging complaint with police station regarding any incident. As regards complaint made by Mr. Chandan Kumar, husband of the petitioner against the petitioner is concerned, it is noted that the said incident had taken place in the presence of IO ASI Sukh Veer Singh in police station when he had called Mr. Chandan Kumar to the police station on the complaint of the petitioner. However, he has not taken any action thereon. Mr. Chandan Kumar has also not pursued the said complaint. Such a complaint regarding a private dispute between husband and wife cannot cause any danger to the peace or public tranquillity. Before 15.06.2021, there was no complaint regarding any dispute between the parties. Moreover, the petitioner and her husband celebrated birthday of their child on 14.06.2021.
Cr. Rev. No. 145/2021 Vaishali Maitray vs. State Page No. 14 of 20
23. Therefore, it is evident that the issue between the petitioner and her husband was pacified on 15.06.2021 and thereafter, the petitioner went to her parental house. It is further evident that on 18.06.2021, IO ASI Sukh Veer Singh had called the petitioner's husband, namely, Chandan Kumar on the complaint of the petitioner where the petitioner and her husband had hot exchange and Chandan Kumar apprehended threat to his life. The Court is not able to understand as to how and why IO ASI Sukh Veer Singh reached to the opinion that if preventive power under Section 107/150 Cr.PC. is not invoked, there could be danger to peace or public tranquillity. There was no imminent threat to peace or public tranquillity. There was absolutely no material before IO ASI Sukh Veer Singh to apprehend breach of peace or public tranquillity. IO ASI Sukh Veer Singh woke up from slumber after 7 days from the date of his visit to the place of incident on receipt of PCR call made by the petitioner when she had already left matrimonial home and initiated proceedings under Section 107/150 of the Cr.PC. after 4 days from the incident taken place in police station on 18.06.2021. This is gross abuse of preventive power. It is further a matter of concern that senior officers like Officer-in-Charge of a police station and ACP, Sub-division also followed his line.
24. Therefore, it is evident that IO ASI Sukh Veer Singh had no credible information or material for making opinion that the petitioner was likely to commit a breach of the peace or disturb the public tranquillity.
Cr. Rev. No. 145/2021 Vaishali Maitray vs. State Page No. 15 of 20 Whether there was any material before SEM, North District, Delhi to proceed under Section 107/150 of the Cr.PC?
25. Besides kalandra and two complaints dated 15.06.2021 and 18.06.2021, SEM, North District, Delhi had not material before him for proceeding under Section 107/150 of the Cr.PC. DD No. 24A dated 15.06.2021 was not filed before him. The arrival entry or proceedings conducted by IO ASI Sukh Veer Singh on assignment of PCR call, vide DD No. 24A, was not filed before him. He did not consider that the issue between the parties was a domestic quarrel. He did not consider the statement of IO ASI Sukh Veer Singh that the petitioner had hot exchange with her husband on domestic issues. He did not consider statement of IO ASI Sukh Veer Singh that he pacified both the parties. IO ASI Sukh Veer Singh did not apprise him that FIR No. 473/2021 was lodged on the complaint dated 15.06.2021 of the petitioner on 24.06.2021. He did not consider that there was no imminent threat to peace or public tranquillity. He did not consider that kalandra under Section 107/111 of the Cr.PC was prepared after 7 days from the date of visit of IO ASI Sukh Veer Singh to the matrimonial home of the petitioner pursuant to receipt of PCR call vide DD No. 24A dated 15.06.2021. He did not consider that IO ASI Sukh Veer Singh did not record statements of the petitioner and her husband or any person from the neighbourhood apprehending any breach of peace or disturbance of public tranquillity. He has passed the impugned order mechanically without applying judicial mind.
Cr. Rev. No. 145/2021 Vaishali Maitray vs. State Page No. 16 of 20
26. SEM, North District, Delhi observed, in the impugned order, that the matter related to the dispute over petty type of issues and still he formed opinion that there were sufficient grounds to initiate proceedings under Section 107/111 of the Cr.PC. SEM, North District, Delhi had no material before him for initiating proceedings under Section 107/111 of the Cr.PC. The impugned order deserves to be set-aside. The impugned order would occasion injustice, if it is not set-aside.
27. Accordingly, the criminal revision petition filed by the petitioner is allowed. The impugned order dated 12.07.2021 qua the petitioner is set-aside.
28. Before parting with the case, the Court would like to place its serious concern regarding the manner in which IO ASI Sukh Veer Singh abused preventive power under Section 107/150 of the Cr.PC. IO ASI Sukh Veer Singh did not apprehend breach of peace or disturbance to the public tranquillity since 15.06.2021 to 22.06.2021. On 22.06.2021, the petitioner tweeted DCP (North) and Commissioner of Police her grievance against PS Burari. Immediately, thereafter, IO ASI Sukh Veer Singh decided to proceed against the petitioner under Section 107/150 of the Cr.PC. IO ASI Sukh Veer Singh as well as Officer-in-Charge of PS Burari and ACP, Timarpur were annoyed with the tweets made by the petitioner to senior officers of police regarding her grievances and they vindicated their anger by initiating proceedings against the petitioner under Section 107/150 of the Cr.PC. on 23.06.2021.
Cr. Rev. No. 145/2021 Vaishali Maitray vs. State Page No. 17 of 20
29. It is further seen that kalandra under Section 107/150 of the Cr.PC was not only prepared on 23.06.2021 but it was forwarded by Officer-in-Charge of PS Burari and ACP, Timarpur on 23.06.2021.
30. The public officers are repository of public trust. They are creation of the statute and vested powers to discharge public functions. The entrusted power must be exercised for giving effect to the objective of law. Public officers must not wield powers to victimise or implicate any person. They should not exercise power to fuel their ego or arrogance. Such abuse of power deplete the scarce finances of the common citizens and waste the energy, resources and infrastructure of the police and the Courts. The proceedings under Section 107/150 of the Cr.P.C were initiated against the petitioner as PS Burari was irritated, annoyed or irked with tweets made by the petitioner to senior officers of police. This is gross misuse and abuse of public powers entrusted to the police. The manner of exercise of preventive power in this case has troubled the Court. It is further a matter of concern that SEM, North District, Delhi instead of correcting such gross abuse of power by PS Burari, he proceeded to summon the petitioner under Section 107/111 of the Cr.PC. The petitioner's husband, namely, Chandan Kumar was simply made party to the proceedings to justify implication of the petitioner in the proceedings under Section 107/150 of the Cr.PC. Such misuse and abuse of preventive powers must be checked, immediately.
Cr. Rev. No. 145/2021 Vaishali Maitray vs. State Page No. 18 of 20
31. The issue concerning implementation of Section 107 and 151 of the Cr.PC. was the subject matter of the judgement delivered by Hon'ble Division Bench of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Aldanish Rein vs. State of NCT of Delhi & Anr., WP (Criminal) 2039/2018 decided on 09.10.2018 reported as 2018 SCC OnLine Del 12207. In the said judgement, Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, in para No. 71, issued directions to ensure that preventive powers under Section 107 or 151 of the Cr.PC are not abused or misused by SEMs. Hon'ble High Court of Delhi emphasized need of periodical training of SEMs.
32. The Commissioner of Police is requested to ensure implementation of directions issued in the case of Aldanish Rein (supra).
33. The Commissioner of Police is also requested to direct an administrative enquiry into the manner of the exercise of the preventive power by IO ASI Sukh Veer Singh, SHO, PS Burari and ACP, Timarpur.
34. A copy of the present order be sent to the office of Commissioner of Police.
35. Trial Court record be sent back alongwith a copy of the present order.
36. Revision file be consigned to record room.
Digitally signedSANJAY by SANJAY SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2021.10.06 17:06:43 +0530 Announced in the open Court SANJAY SHARMA-II on this 06th October, 2021 Addl. Sessions Judge-03 (Central) Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi Cr. Rev. No. 145/2021 Vaishali Maitray vs. State Page No. 19 of 20 Vaishali Maitray vs. State CNR No.: DLCT010106182021 Crl. Revision No. 145/2021 06.10.2021 Present : Mr. Anant Deep Thakur, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Amit Dabas, Ld. Addl. PP for the State / the respondent.
Vide separate order, the criminal revision petition filed by the petitioner is allowed. The revision file be consigned to record room.
Digitally signed SANJAY by SANJAY
SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2021.10.06
17:06:54 +0530
Sanjay SharmaII
ASJ03, Central District,
Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi
NK 06.10.2021
Cr. Rev. No. 145/2021 Vaishali Maitray vs. State Page No. 20 of 20