Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

3.8 There was no proximate cause or immediate ostensible justifiable reason which triggered SHO, PS Jamia Nagar/respondent no.4 (hereinafter referred to as "the respondent no.4") to prepare the purported dossier and proposal of the petitioner on 28.03.2022 as the last case which was stated to be registered against the petitioner in 2021 whereas the purported proposal was sent for approval on 28.03.2022 which was consequently approved by the respondent no 2 on 30.03.2022 without recording the special reasons and application of mind. The mala fide conduct of the Delhi Police is also manifestly apparent from the fact that the entire dossier and the purported proposal has been deliberately leaked in the media. The petitioner was also subjected to inhuman and degraded treatment by ACP, Kalkaji without any provocation on 12.05.2022 during the demolition drive in contravention to his fundamental rights as guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. The petitioner sent a legal notice dated 21.05.2022 whereby to call upon respondent no.1 to revoke the proceedings in question but no response or action was taken on the said legal notice.

W.P.(CRL)1326/2022 Page 15 Neutral Citation Number:2023/DHC/000409 6.4 He further argued that proposed History Sheet is an example of the non-application of mind and mala fide exercise of powers. There was no proximate cause for opening the purported History Sheet and according approval thereon by the respondent no 2. The Delhi Police never initiated any proceedings as per Section 110 of the Code. The counsel for the petitioner argued that the proposed action in opening the History Sheet and subsequent approval by the DCP be quashed and the writ petition be allowed. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied on Amarendra Kumar Pandey V Union of India & Others, 2022 Live Law (SC) 600; Deepak Solanki @ Sansar V The State & Others, Writ Petition (Crl,) 14/2005 decided on 03.07.2009; Amrik Singh V Commissioner of Police, Criminal Writ Petition No. 300/1985 decided on 06.04.1987; Mohd. Anis V The Commissioner of Police and Others, 1993(25) DRJ (DB); Peter Samuel Wallace V Inspector General of Police New Delhi & Others, (1981) 20 DLT 333 and Sarjeet Singh V Commissioner of Police & Others, 2022 (62) DRJ 644 (DB).

9. The main allegation of the petitioner and as argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the name of the petitioner was entered in Register-X, W.P.(CRL)1326/2022 Page 18 Neutral Citation Number:2023/DHC/000409 Part- II, Bundle „A‟ without following due process of law and the Rules and in mechanical manner and without recording definite reasons and application of mind in contravention of the Rule 23 of the Rules and there was no proximate cause or immediate ostensible, justifiable reasons to prepare the dossier and proposal of the petitioner on 28.03.2022 and consequent approval accorded by the respondent no 2 on 30.03.2022 was without recording special reasons and application of mind. As per the respondents and as argued by the learned Additional Solicitor General, the respondent no 4 through the respondent no 3 sent a proposal to the respondent no 2 on 28.03.2022 for opening History Sheet of the petitioner under the Rules and on the basis of subjective satisfaction and after giving proper reasons, the respondent no 2 has approved the opening of the History Sheet qua the petitioner and also the entry of his name in Register-X, Part- II, Bundle „A‟ after following due process of law.