Delhi District Court
JsccAscjGj (Shahdara) vs Union Of India on 13 August, 2018
IN THE COURT OF MS. ANU AGGARWAL,
JSCCASCJGJ (SHAHDARA),
KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI.
Suit No.: 9018/16
Sh. Ajab Singh Bagri
S/o Late Suraj Mal
R/o 27/103/A2,
Jwala Nagar, Shahdara,
Delhi 110032.
...... Plaintiff
versus
1. Union of India
Through The Secretary,
Ministry of Home Affairs,
Government of India,
New Delhi 110001.
2. Govt. of National Capital Territory of Delhi
Through The Secretary (Home Affairs)
Delhi Government Secretariat,
Indraprastha Estate, New Delhi 110002.
3. The Commissioner of Police,
Police Headquarters, Indraprastha Estate,
New Delhi 110002.
4. The Deputy Commissioner of Police
East District, Shalimar Park,
Shahdara, Delhi.
5. The S.H.O.
Police Station : Vivek Vihar,
Vivek Vihar, Delhi.
......Defendants
DATE OF INSTITUTION : 27.01.2010
DATE OF RESERVING THE ORDER : 17.07.2018
DATE OF DECISION : 13.08.2018
DECISION : Dismissed.
Suit No.9018/16 Ajab Singh Bagri vs. Union of India & Ors. Page No.1 of 25
Suit for Damages and Compensation of
Rs. 1 lacs.
JUDGMENT:
1. The present suit has been filed by the plaintiff for damages and compensation of Rs. 1 lacs against the defendants.
2. The brief facts of the case of the plaintiff are as under:
(a) It is stated by the plaintiff that he is proprietor of M/s Varun Communication. He was an office bearer of political party Bahujan Kranti Dal (Jai). He was National Organization Secretary of Indian Justice Party, registered with Election Commission of India. At present, he is active member of Delhi Pradesh Congress Committee, which is upholding the causes of poor and oppressed people of India.
(b) Since, the plaintiff is trying to curb the corruption by filing complaints etc. against corrupt officials of government departments, some government officials including officials of Delhi Police have been trying to implicate the plaintiff in false criminal cases by opening his history sheets.
(c) It is stated that plaintiff and members of political party staged dharna and demonstration etc. against unlawful activities of government officials. The plaintiff wrote letter dated 18.12.2000 to Commissioner of Police against corruption committed by Sh. Hem Chand, the then SHO PS Welcome and Mr. Suresh Rai, the then ACP, Suit No.9018/16 Ajab Singh Bagri vs. Union of India & Ors. Page No.2 of 25 New Delhi range. On 22.03.2001, plaintiff got arrested Mr. Shiv Shanker Prasad, the then Sub Inspector of PS Welcome on the charge of corruption and one FIR bearing no. 14/2001 got registered against one Sh. Shiv Shankar Prasad. On 04.04.2001, plaintiff wrote letter to DCP East District, Shalimar Park, Shahdara and staged Dharna and demonstration to compel the police to investigate a rape matter in which accused was brother of one SHO of PS North East Region of Delhi.
(d) It is alleged that since plaintiff was involved in getting arrested the officials of Delhi Police, they considered the plaintiff as their enemy and hence, DCP (East District) had ordered opening of a history sheet of plaintiff on 28.07.2001 at PS Vivek Vihar, Delhi. The sole motive of opening false history sheet was to harass the plaintiff and to falsely implicate him in various criminal cases. It is stated that nine criminal cases were shown as against plaintiff. All cases were false and plaintiff has been acquitted/discharged in those cases.
(e) It is stated that plaintiff had filed a writ petition (criminal) bearing no 403/2002 in Hon'ble Delhi High Court for quashing of history sheet. A report was filed by Delhi Police stating that plaintiff is not involved in any criminal case after year 2005 and plaintiff is no longer a history sheeter. In view of the same, the writ petition was disposed off as infructuous.
(f) It is stated that the history sheet against the plaintiff was false and was open to harass, torture, defame and threaten the plaintiff.
Suit No.9018/16 Ajab Singh Bagri vs. Union of India & Ors. Page No.3 of 25 It is stated that the history sheet was not opened as per Punjab Police Rules vide Rule No. 23.9 (2). It is stated that due to the opening of history sheet by defendant no. 4 and 5, plaintiff has suffered a lot. His name was displayed in the top bad criminals of the locality at the local police station alongwith his photograph. Many a times he was picked up by police officials from his house without any reason and was released after 12 days without lodging any case against him. It is stated that he was being followed by police officials either in uniform or in plain clothes.
(g) It is stated that due to harassment being caused, the plaintiff is claiming a sum of Rs.1 lacs as damages and compensation from the defendants. Hence, present suit.
3. The defendant no. 1 was proceeded exparte vide order dated 19.08.2010. Defendants no. 2 to 5, by way of written statement, has raised following pleas :
(a) It is alleged that the suit is barred by the provision of 138 and 140 of Delhi Police Act. The plaintiff has no cause of action against defendants. The plaintiff has failed to serve notice under Section 80 CPC and hence suit is liable to be dismissed. It is stated that during year 1995 to 2001, plaintiff was found involved in seven cases under different sections of IPC and DP Act and keeping in view of criminal activities of the plaintiff, SHO Vivek Vihar moved the proposal for opening history sheet of plaintiff in order to keep watch on his criminal activities. Accordingly, by the order of DCP (East), Suit No.9018/16 Ajab Singh Bagri vs. Union of India & Ors. Page No.4 of 25 history sheet of plaintiff was opened on 28.07.2001. The history sheet was reviewed by DCP (East) on 04.08.2008 and the last involvement of the plaintiff was found to be in the year 2005. The history sheet was transferred from Bundle A to Bundle B. The rest of the averments of the plaint were denied by defendants no. 2 to 5.
4. Replication was filed by plaintiff to the WS of defendants no. 2 to 5 wherein all the allegations of the defendants no. 2 to 5 were denied and contents of the plaint were reiterated.
5. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed vide order dated 24.01.2011: ISSUES
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree in the sum of Rs.1 lakh against the defendants as damages ? OPP
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to any pendantelite and future interest ? OPP
3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to any cost ? OPP
4. Whether the present suit is barred by provisions of Delhi Police Act ? OPD
5. Whether the present suit is without any cause of action ? OPD
6. Whether the present suit is time barred under DP Act and u/s 80 CPC ? OPD Suit No.9018/16 Ajab Singh Bagri vs. Union of India & Ors. Page No.5 of 25
7. Whether the present suit is barred by law of limitation ? OPD
8. Relief
6. The plaintiff has examined following witnesses in his evidence:
(a) The plaintiff has examined himself as PW1 and has tendered his affidavit as PW1/A and has relied upon following documents :
1. Copy of letter dated 18.12.2000 as Mark A.
2. Copy of FIR No. 14/2001 against Sh. Shiv Shankar Parshad as Mark B.
3. Copy of one newspaper cutting showing his involvement in getting arrested Sh. Shiv Shankar Parshad as Mark C.
4. Copy of letter to DCP East District as Mark D.
5. Copy of one newspaper showing his involvement in the said matter as Mark E.
6. Certified copy of Writ Petition (Criminal) bearing no. 403/2002 as Ex. PW1/1.
7. Certified copy of orders dated 14.01.2009 in Writ Petition (Criminal) 403/2002 as Ex. PW1/2.
Suit No.9018/16 Ajab Singh Bagri vs. Union of India & Ors. Page No.6 of 25
8. Office copy of legal notice dated 09.11.2009 as Ex. PW1/3 and original registered A/D Postal Receipts and UPC Receipts as Ex. PW1/4 to Ex. PW1/9 respectively.
9. Three original AD Cards as Ex. PW1/10 to Ex.
PW1/12.
10.The original replies received from defendant no. 1 and 4 alongwith original envelopes containing said replies as Ex. PW1/13 to Ex. PW1/16.
11.The original Medical Certificate issued by Dr. Om Parkash as Ex. PW1/17.
(b) PW2 Smt. Charanjeet Kaur has tendered her affidavit of evidence as PW2/A. She has relied upon copy of her election I.D. Card Ex. PW2/1.
(c) PW3 Ct. Sanjay Yadav had produced original FIR bearing no. 14/2001 lodged at PS Anti Corruption Branch Delhi, Ex. PW3/1.
(d) PW4 HC Manoj Kumar had produced the certificate issued by ACP (HQ) East District, Delhi, certifying that all record upto 31.12.2008 pertaining to complaint branch office of DCP East District has been destroyed vide office order no. 8750849/HAR/E dated 22.07.2013, Ex. PW4/1.
(e) PW5 Sunil Kumar, Inspector Income Tax produced the Suit No.9018/16 Ajab Singh Bagri vs. Union of India & Ors. Page No.7 of 25 letter dated 20.01.2016 by Income Tax Officer Ms. Uma Saigal stating that plaintiff has filed returns for the period 20032004 to 20072008.
(f) Sh. Bala Krishan Chetry, Record Keeper of Hindustan Media Ventures Ltd. has been examined as PW6 who has produced his authorization letter dated 03.08.2016 as Ex. PW6/A and has submitted that the original newspaper "Hindustan" (Hindi Daily) of dates 06.04.2001 and 26.03.2001 are not in their records.
(g) Sh. Rajvansh, Record Clerk, Record Room (Criminal), East District, Karkardooma Courts has been examined as PW7. He has produced the original judicial file of case titled as "State vs. Amit Kumar and Ajab Singh Bagri" bearing FIR No. 359/05, PS Farsh Bazar, U/s 341/323/506/34 IPC, which is decided by Hon'ble Court of Sh. R.L. Meen, the then Ld. MM, Karkardooma Courts Delhi vide order dated 09.08.2010 and exhibited the certified copy of the said orders dated 09.08.2010 as Ex. PW7/1 (2 pages).
No other witness was examined by the plaintiff in his evidence and PE was closed vide order dated 23.02.2017.
7. Defendants have examined Sh. Mukesh Kumar SHO PS Vivek Vihar in defence evidence as DW1 and he has tendered his affidavit as DW1/A. No witness was examined by the defendants in their defence and DE was closed vide order dated 26.04.2018.
8. I have heard the arguments and have gone through the case Suit No.9018/16 Ajab Singh Bagri vs. Union of India & Ors. Page No.8 of 25 file.
9. My issue wise findings are as under : ISSUE No. 7.
Whether the present suit is barred by law of limitation? OPD
10. The perusal of case file reflects that plaintiff had filed one application under Section 151 CPC for condonation of delay in filing the present suit on ground of illness on 25.01.2010. The said application is still pending.
10.1 The plaintiff is claiming damages and compensation from the defendants for opening historysheet dated 28.07.2001 on the basis that the said history sheet was false and frivolous. The plaintiff has deposed that officials of Delhi Police has falsely implicated him and he suffered mental tension, trauma, pain, agony apart from financial loses incurred by him in contesting the cases and history sheet including counsel fee and other expenses. The plaintiff has claimed the compensation amount on the basis of mental agony and expenses incurred by him.
10.2 Therefore, the case of the plaintiff is covered under Article 79 of The Limitation Act, 1963. The limitation period for filing of the present case is one year from the date of distress.
10.3 The plaintiff has not mentioned the respective dates in the pleadings when he suffered such mental harassment. The same has Suit No.9018/16 Ajab Singh Bagri vs. Union of India & Ors. Page No.9 of 25 also not been mentioned in the affidavit of evidence. The plaintiff has stated that cause of action arose in his favour on 14.01.2009, when officials of Delhi Police reported in Hon'ble Delhi High Court that plaintiff is no longer a history sheeter after review of history sheet on 30.07.2008 and 04.08.2008. Though, the limitation is to be counted from the date of distress but even if, in the absence of any specific date, contention of plaintiff is accepted, then also the suit is not within limitation as it has been filed only on 25.01.2010.
10.4 The plaintiff has stated that cause of action has arosen on 11.11.2009 when notice dated 09.11.2009 was posted by him to the defendants. However, merely posting of notices does not give any fresh cause of action in favour of the plaintiff.
10.5 The suit of the plaintiff is beyond limitation and even plaintiff has accepted the same fact in para no. 19 of the plaint wherein he has mentioned that he has filed an applicatin under Section 151 CPC for condonation of delay in filing the suit. He has also filed separate application under Section 151 CPC for condonation of delay.
10.6 Ld. Counsel for plaintiff has argued that delay in instituting the suit be condoned on the ground of illness of plaintiff under Order VII Rule 6 r/w Section 151 CPC. However, there is no substance in the arguments of ld. Counsel and delay in instituting the suit cannot be condoned under Order VII Rule 6 CPC. 10.7 Section 3 of Limitation Act creates bar of limitation. Under Section 3 of Limitation Act, if the suit is not instituted within Suit No.9018/16 Ajab Singh Bagri vs. Union of India & Ors. Page No.10 of 25 the period of limitation, than the suit is liable to be dismissed. The condonation of delay in filing an application and appeal is provided under Section 5 of Limitation Act. However, Section 5 of Limitation is not applicable to the suits and therefore, there cannot be any condonation of delay in filing the suit and in case, the suit is without limitation, it has to be dismissed u/s 3 of Limitation Act. 10.8 The provision of Order VII Rule 6 CPC does not provide for condonation of delay in filing of the suit. The said provision is applicable only for the purpose of claiming the exemption from the limitation according to Section 12 to 20 of Limitation Act. Whenever, the suit is instituted beyond the period of limitation and the party is claiming exemption on the basis of section 12 to 20 of Limitation Act that Order VII Rule 6 of CPC comes into picture and plaint shall show the ground upon which exemption from the law is claimed. There is no provision in the limitation Act for excluding the time period when the plaintiff could not institute the suit on the basis of his illness. Therefore, the provision of order VII Rule 6 CPC is not applicable to the present case. The suit is beyond limitation and this issue is decided in favour of defendants and as against plaintiff.
ISSUE No. 4.
Whether the present suit is barred by provisions of Delhi Police Act ? OPD
11. The defendant has stated that the suit is barred under the Suit No.9018/16 Ajab Singh Bagri vs. Union of India & Ors. Page No.11 of 25 provisions of 138 and 140 DP Act. Both the sections are reproduced as under : "138. No police officer to be liable to penalty or damage for act done in good faith in pursuance of duty. No police officer shall be liable to any penalty or to payment of any damages on account of an act done in good faith in pursuance of or purported to be done in pursuance of any duty imposed or any authority conferred on him by any provision of this Act or any other law for the time being in force or any rule, regulation, order or direction made or given thereunder.
140. Bar to suits and prosecutions. (1) In any case of alleged offence by a police officer or other person, or of a wrong alleged to have been done by such police officer or other person, by any act done under colour of duty or authority or in excess of any such duty or authority, or wherein it shall appear to the court that the offence or wrong if committed or done was of the character aforesaid, the prosecution or suit shall not be entertained and if entertained shall be dismissed if it is instituted, more than three months after the date of the act complained of:
Provided that any such prosecution against a Suit No.9018/16 Ajab Singh Bagri vs. Union of India & Ors. Page No.12 of 25 police officer or other person may be entertained by the court, if instituted with the previous sanction of the Administrator, within one year from the date of the offence.
(2) In case of an intended suit on account of such a wrong as aforesaid, the person intending to sue shall given to the alleged wrongdoer not less than one month's notice of the intended suit with sufficient description of the wrong complained of, and if no such notice has been given before the institution of the suit, it shall be dismissed.
(3) The plaint shall set forth that a notice as aforesaid has been served on the defendant and the date of such service and shall state what tender or amends, if any, has been made by the plaintiff of the defendant and a copy of the said notice shall be annexed to the plaint endorsed or accompanied with a declaration by the plaintiff of the time and manner of service thereof."
11.1 The plaintiff has deposed that he was office bearer of a political party and has acted to help the poor and oppressed people in lawful manner. He wrote letter dated 18.12.2000 to the Commissioner of Police against corruption committed by the then SHO Police Station Welcome Mr. Hem Chand and the then ACP Mr. Suresh Rai. The said letter is Mark A. However, merely because the plaintiff has Suit No.9018/16 Ajab Singh Bagri vs. Union of India & Ors. Page No.13 of 25 written letter Mark A does not prove that a false history sheet has been opened against him.
11.2 The plaintiff has deposed that on 22.03.2001, he alongwith other members of political party got arrested Mr. Shiv Shanker Prasad, the then Sub Inspector of PS Welcome on the charge of corruption and FIR no. 14/2001 got registered, which is Ex. PW3/1. the photocopy of newspaper cutting showing his involvement in getting arrested Mr. Shiv Shankar Prasad is Mark C. The perusal of FIR only reflects that FIR got registered but it does not prove that the same has been due to the efforts of the plaintiff. The plaintiff is relying upon photocopy of newspaper cutting Mark C to show his involvement in getting the above FIR registered. However, original newspaper has not been produced. Only photocopy of one page is annexed on which there is no date mention of publication of newspaper. Further, the source of newspaper report is not disclosed. As per report in Mark C, the plaintiff had filed a complaint with Anti Corruption Bureau but the plaintiff has not called the concern records from Anti Corruption Bureau to prove that he had filed any complaints. The plaintiff has not filed the said complaints on record.
11.3 The plaintiff has deposed that on 04.04.2001, he wrote letter to DCP East District to compel the police to investigate a rape matter and copy of said letter is Mark D and newspaper cutting showing his involvement is Mark E. For the reason as stated above, neither writing of a letter nor the photocopy of newspaper cutting Suit No.9018/16 Ajab Singh Bagri vs. Union of India & Ors. Page No.14 of 25 proves that plaintiff has been falsely implicated and a false history sheet was opened against him.
11.4 The history sheet was opened with the order of Dy. Commissioner of Police (East District) on 28.07.2001. The plaintiff had filed Writ Petition (Cri) bearing no. 403/2002 in Hon'ble Delhi High Court for quashing of said history sheet. The certified copy of order dated 14.01.2009 passed by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in said Writ Petition reflects that defendants had filed the confidential file of the plaintiff before Hon'ble High Court of Delhi to show that on 30.07.2008, history sheet of the plaintiff was reviewed and thereafter again on 04.08.2008, it was reviewed and it has been noted that plaintiff is not involved in any case after year 2005. It was stated that the plaintiff is no longer a history sheeter and was not under surveillance since August 2008. On the basis of said report, the petition of the plaintiff for quashing the history sheet was disposed off as infructuous. Therefore, the petition was disposed off on the ground that the plaintiff is no longer historysheeter but there is no observation that the said history sheet was false or was opened by the officials of Delhi Police due to personal enmity towards plaintiff.
11.5 The plaintiff has deposed that the action of Delhi Police Officials was only to harass, torture, defame and threaten him in order to take revenge. He has deposed that he has suffered mental tension, trauma, pain, agony apart from financial losses as he incurred expenses to contest the cases and history sheet. He has deposed that Suit No.9018/16 Ajab Singh Bagri vs. Union of India & Ors. Page No.15 of 25 he has suffered defamation and loss of reputation in the eyes of general people who are known to him. He has deposed that he was picked up by the police officials without any reason and were kept for one to two days without any case. However, the plaintiff has not mentioned any date, time or name of the persons who had picked the plaintiff from his home. The plaintiff has not filed any document to show that he has incurred expenses. The plaintiff has not led any evidence to show that the cases filed against him by Delhi Police were false and he was falsely implicated in those cases. In the cross examination, plaintiff has admitted that during period from 1995 to 2001, seven criminal cases were registered against him. However, there is nothing on record to show that all those cases were false. Merely stating by the plaintiff that the cases filed against him were false is not suffice. The plaintiff has to show that he was not only acquitted/discharged from the appropriate court of law but also the finding thereof that the case filed against him were false and plaintiff was found to be innocent. However, there is nothing on record to prove the same.
11.6 Therefore, it is the own admission of the plaintiff that seven cases were registered against him. The plaintiff has not filed the certified copy of judgment/orders of all those cases. Since, the plaintiff has not been able to prove that false cases were registered against him, the contention of the plaintiff that history sheet was opened due to enmity cannot be accepted. That being so, even if the Suit No.9018/16 Ajab Singh Bagri vs. Union of India & Ors. Page No.16 of 25 plaintiff has incurred expenses for defending those cases or even if, his reputation was lowered in the eyes of the people as he was called criminal, he cannot be entitled to any compensation/damages from the defendant. In view of the same, this issue is decided as against plaintiff.
ISSUE No. 1.
Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree in the sum of Rs.1 lakh against the defendants as damages ? OPP
12. The plaintiff has deposed that he was office bearer of a political party and was acted to help the poor and oppressed people in lawful manner. He wrote letter dated 18.12.2000 to the Commissioner of Police against corruption committed by the then SHO Police Station Welcome Mr. Hem Chand and the then ACP Mr. Suresh Rai. The said letter is Mark A. However, merely because the plaintiff has written letter Mark A does not prove that a false history sheet has been opened against him.
12.1 The plaintiff has deposed that on 22.03.2001, he alongwith other members of political party got arrested Mr. Shiv Shanker Prasad, the then Sub Inspector of PS Welcome on the charge of corruption and FIR no. 14/2001 got registered, which is Ex. PW3/1. the photocopy of newspaper cutting showing his involvement in getting arrested Mr. Shiv Shankar Prasad is Mark C. The perusal of FIR only reflects that FIR got registered but it does not prove that the Suit No.9018/16 Ajab Singh Bagri vs. Union of India & Ors. Page No.17 of 25 same has been due to the efforts of the plaintiff. The plaintiff is relying upon photocopy of newspaper cutting Mark C to show his involvement in getting the above FIR registered. However, original newspaper has not been produced. Only photocopy of one page is annexed on which there is no date mention of publication of newspaper. Further, the source of newspaper report is not disclosed. As per report in Mark C, the plaintiff had filed a complaint with Anti Corruption Bureau but the plaintiff has not called the concern records from Anti Corruption Bureau to prove that he had filed any complaints. The plaintiff has not filed the said complaints on record.
12.2 The plaintiff has deposed that on 04.04.2001, he wrote letter to DCP East District to compel the police to investigate a rape matter and copy of said letter is Mark D and newspaper cutting showing his involvement is Mark E. For the reason as stated above, neither writing of a letter nor the photocopy of newspaper cutting proves that plaintiff has been falsely implicated and a false history sheet was opened against him.
12.3 The history sheet was opened with the order of Dy. Commissioner of Police (East District) on 28.07.2001. The plaintiff had filed Writ Petition (Cri) bearing no. 403/2002 in Hon'ble Delhi High Court for quashing of said history sheet. The certified copy of order dated 14.01.2009 passed by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in said Writ Petition reflects that defendants had filed the confidential file of the plaintiff before Hon'ble High Court of Delhi to show that on Suit No.9018/16 Ajab Singh Bagri vs. Union of India & Ors. Page No.18 of 25 30.07.2008, history sheet of the plaintiff was reviewed and thereafter again on 04.08.2008, it was reviewed and it has been noted that plaintiff is not involved in any case after year 2005. It was stated that the plaintiff is no longer a history sheeter and was not under surveillance since August 2008. On the basis of said report, the petition of the plaintiff for quashing the history sheet was disposed off as infructuous. Therefore, the petition was disposed off on the ground that the plaintiff is no longer historysheeter but there is no observation that the said history sheet was false or was opened by the officials of Delhi Police due to personal enmity towards plaintiff.
12.4 The plaintiff has deposed that the action of Delhi Police Officials was only to harass, torture, defame and threaten him in order to take revenge. He has deposed that he has suffered mental tension, trauma, pain, agony apart from financial losses as he incurred expenses to contest the cases and history sheet. He has deposed that he has suffered defamation and loss of reputation in the eyes of general people who are known to him. He has deposed that he was picked up by the police officials without any reason and were kept for one to two days without any case. However, the plaintiff has not mentioned any date, time or name of the persons who had picked the plaintiff from his home. The plaintiff has not filed any document to show that he has incurred expenses. The plaintiff has not led any evidence to show that the cases filed against him by Delhi Police were false and he was falsely implicated in those cases. In the cross Suit No.9018/16 Ajab Singh Bagri vs. Union of India & Ors. Page No.19 of 25 examination, plaintiff has admitted that during period from 1995 to 2001, seven criminal cases were registered against him. However, there is nothing on record to show that all those cases were false. Merely stating by the plaintiff that the cases filed against him were false is not suffice. The plaintiff has to show that he was not only acquitted/discharged from the appropriate court of law but also the finding thereof that the case filed against him were false and plaintiff was found to be innocent. However, there is nothing on record to prove the same.
12.5 Therefore, it is the own admission of the plaintiff that seven cases were registered against him. The plaintiff has not filed the certified copy of judgment/orders of all those cases. Since, the plaintiff has not been able to prove that false cases were registered against him, the contention of the plaintiff that history sheet was opened due to enmity cannot be accepted. That being so, even if the plaintiff has incurred expenses for defending those cases or even if, his reputation was lowered in the eyes of the people as he was called criminal, he cannot be entitled to any compensation/damages from the defendant.
12.6 PW2 Smt. Charanjeet Kaur has deposed that she knows plaintiff for the last more than 20 years. She alongwith plaintiff was connected with political parties like Bahujan Kranti Dal and Indian Justice Party. She has deposed that plaintiff helped needful persons and nabbed corrupt government officials due to which Delhi Police Suit No.9018/16 Ajab Singh Bagri vs. Union of India & Ors. Page No.20 of 25 became inimical towards him, police officials tried to implicate him in false cases. She has deposed that she helped plaintiff to fight against corruption in Delhi Police and due to enmity, a false history sheet was opened against plaintiff on 28.07.2001. She has deposed that plaintiff has suffered mental tension, trauma and financial losses due to opening of historysheet and he suffered defamation and loss of reputation.
12.7 PW2 has not produced any documents to show his association with Bahujan Kranti Dal before 2005. She has stated in the cross examination that she does not know the name of police official against whom they protested before Police Headquarter. The fact that she is not even aware of name of police official against whom she was carrying out protest itself reflects that he was not involved in any such protest. She has not deposed the time and the date when the plaintiff was taken by the police officials without any reason. Even otherwise, once it is not proved that the history sheet was false and that all the cases registered against the plaintiff were false, even if he has suffered any mental trauma due to registration of cases would not entitle him to any relief. In view of the same, this issue is decided as against plaintiff.
ISSUE No. 2.
Whether the plaintiff is entitled to any pendantelite and future interest ? OPP Suit No.9018/16 Ajab Singh Bagri vs. Union of India & Ors. Page No.21 of 25
13. In view of findings of issue no. 1, this issue is decided as against plaintiff.
ISSUE No. 3.
Whether the plaintiff is entitled to any cost ? OPP
14. In view of findings of issue no. 1, this issue is decided as against plaintiff.
ISSUE No. 5.
Whether the present suit is without any cause of action ? OPD
15. The onus of above issue was upon the defendant but defendants have failed to prove that suit is without any cause of action. The plaintiff has stated in the plaint that a false history sheet was opened against him and he was falsely implicated. He has stated that he was defamed and have to undergo mental agony due to opening of history sheet. The plaintiff has claimed compensation for said mental agony and distress. Therefore, the perusal of the plaint discloses cause of action in filing of the present suit. In view of the same, this issue is decided in favour of plaintiff.
ISSUE No. 6.
Whether the present suit is time barred under DP Act and u/s 80 CPC ? OPD
16. In view of finding of issue no. 1, plaintiff has failed to Suit No.9018/16 Ajab Singh Bagri vs. Union of India & Ors. Page No.22 of 25 prove that the history sheet was opened against him due to personal enmity. The plaintiff has failed to prove that he was falsely implicated in the cases. The history sheet was opened by the order of Dy. Commissioner of Police, East District on 28.07.2001 at Police Station Vivek Vihar, Delhi. DW1 Mukesh Kumar has stated in the affidavit of evidence that keeping in view of the criminal activities of plaintiff, the then SHO Vivek Vihar moved the proposal for opening history sheet of the plaintiff and accordingly, by the order of the then DCP East, history sheet was opened. Not even a single suggestion was given to the witness by the plaintiff that no proposal was sent by SHO PS Vivek Vihar through DCP concerned keeping in view the criminal activities of plaintiff or that such proposal was false and was given to falsely implicate the accused. Therefore, the police officials acted in discharge of their official duties and has opened the history sheet in terms of Rule 23.9 Punjab Police Rule Chapter 23. The Punjab Police Rules 23.9 deal with the cases when history sheet can be opened. It is reproduced as under : "23.9. History sheets when opened. (1) A history sheet, if one does not already exist, shall be opened in Form 23.9 for every person whose name is entered in the surveillance register, except conditionally released convicts.
(2) A history sheet may be opened by, or under the written orders of, a police officer not below the rank of Suit No.9018/16 Ajab Singh Bagri vs. Union of India & Ors. Page No.23 of 25 inspector for any person not entered in the surveillance register who is reasonably believed to be habitually addicted to crime or to be an aider or abettor of such persons."
(3) The Government Railway Police will maintain the history sheets of criminals known or suspected to operate on the railway in accordance with Police Rule 23.8. They will open history sheets themselves for criminals living in railway premises, who have been absent from their original home so long that the railway premises may be regarded as their permanent residence. They may also open history sheets for wandering strangers reasonably believed to be habitually addicted to crime on the railway, whose original homes cannot be traced."
16.1 The plaintiff has admitted that seven cases were registered against him during period from 1995 to 2001. He has not disputed that the then SHO PS Vivek Vihar had sent the proposal for opening of historysheet as against him. Keeping in view that seven cases were registered against plaintiff, historysheet was opened as per Punjab Police Rules. Therefore, the defendants have acted in discharge of their official duties and no suit could have been filed against them unless one month's notice is given to them with sufficient description of wrong complained of. The plaintiff has filed legal notice Ex. PW1/3 alongwith postal receipts Ex. PW1/4 to Ex. PW1/8, Suit No.9018/16 Ajab Singh Bagri vs. Union of India & Ors. Page No.24 of 25 UPC Ex. PW1/9 and AD Card Ex. PW1/10 to Ex. PW1/13 alongwith legal notice Ex. PW1/15 and postal receipts Ex. PW1/16 which proves that the legal notice was given by the plaintiff to the defendant before filing the present suit. The legal notice Ex. PW1/3 is dated 09.11.2009 and was dispatched on 11.11.2009 and therefore, must have been delivered at least by end of November 2009. The present suit has been filed on 25.01.2010 and therefore, after expiry of one month of service of legal notice. In view of the same, this issue is decided as against defendants and in favour of plaintiff.
Relief
17. The suit of the plaintiff stands dismissed. Let decree sheet be drawn up accordingly.
18. File be consigned to Record Room.
(Typed under my direct dictation)
Announced in open Court. ANU
On 13.08.2018
This Judgment contains 25 pages
AGGARWAL
and each page is signed by me.
Digitally signed by
ANU AGGARWAL
ANU AGGARWAL
JSCC/ASCJ/GJ (SHAHDARA)
KKD COURTS/DELHI
Date: 2018.08.14
16:18:29 +0530
Suit No.9018/16 Ajab Singh Bagri vs. Union of India & Ors. Page No.25 of 25