AKBAR ALI Vs. STATE
LAWS(DLH)-2014-4-63
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Decided on April 22,2014

AKBAR ALI Appellant
VERSUS
State (Govt. of NCT, Delhi) And Others Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

NILABATI BEHERA ALIAS LAUTA BEHERA VS. STATE OF ORISSA [REFERRED TO]
SHAKILA ABDUL GAFAR KHAN VS. VASANT RAGHUNATH DHOBLE [REFERRED TO]
SUMER CHAND VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
BALVINDER SINGH SODHI VS. MAHENDER SINGH INSPECTOR [REFERRED TO]
INSPECTOR RAJENDER SAINI VS. STATE [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

- (1.)THE plaintiff has on 10th May, 2005 sued the State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi), the Commissioner of Police, the S.H.O. Police Station -Jahangirpuri, Sub Inspector, Jaipal Singh and one Mr. Niranjan Singh, for damages and compensation in the sum of Rs.22 lakhs along with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of institution of the suit till realization, pleading:
(i) that the plaintiff has been carrying on proprietorship firms namely M/s. Star Steel Polishing and Buffing Works and M/s. Akbar Polishing Works and is an income tax assessee;

(ii) that the plaintiff, in the month of January, 2002, was repairing and constructing his house No.J -1746 -47 Jahangirpuri, Delhi when a small portion of his balcony fell down in the night; however no harm was caused to any neighbour resident including family members of the plaintiff;

(iii) that the defendant No.5 Mr. Niranjan Singh aforesaid, resident of H.No.J -1754, Jahangirpuri, Delhi however called the police and demanded examination of contents of cement used in the process of construction and to which the plaintiff agreed; (iv) that the cement used was found to be genuine;

(v) that the defendant No.5 however asked the plaintiff for a sum of Rs.50,000/ -, under threat of implicating the plaintiff in civil and criminal cases;

(vi) that on the refusal of the plaintiff to pay, the defendant No.5 subjected the plaintiff and his family members to harassment, of which complaints dated 25th February, 2002, 8th April, 2002, 9th April, 2002, 11th April, 2002, 17th April, 2002, 26th April, 2002, 10th May, 2002 and 16th May, 2002 were made by the plaintiff to various authorities;

(vii) that the defendant No.5 along with some others also physically attacked the plaintiff and his family members and of which First Information Report (FIR) No.239/2002 under Sections 323/341/34 IPC was lodged on 23rd April, 2002;

(viii) that the defendant No.5 and his associates continued to harass the plaintiff and of which Kalandra under Sections 107/111 Cr.P.C. was submitted by the police against the defendant No.5 and his associates;

(ix) that the defendant No.5 along with another, in the month of May, 2002, also filed a suit for permanent and mandatory injunction for restraining the plaintiff from raising construction and for demolition of the construction already raised;

(x) that another complaint dated 11th July, 2002 was made by the plaintiff against the defendant No.5;

(xi) that the defendant No.5 got registered FIR No.452/2002 under Sections 307/354/34 IPC on 16th July, 2002 against the plaintiff and two others of an incident which had not taken place;

(xii) that the plaintiff was arrested in the aforesaid case and was kept in custody for about 45 days and where after he was released on bail;

(xiii) that the plaintiff preferred Criminal Writ Petition No.19/2003 in this Court for transfer of investigation in the aforesaid two FIRs (FIR No.239/2002 and FIR No.452/2002) to an independent and impartial agency and vide order in which, the investigation was transferred to the District Investigating Unit North West;

(xiv) that however in the meanwhile charge sheet had been filed by defendant No.4 S.I. Jaipal Singh aforesaid in connivance with the defendant No.5 and the plaintiff was put to trial in case FIR No.452/2002;

(xv) that vide judgment dated 5th March, 2004, the plaintiff was given benefit of doubt and acquitted;

(xvi) that no appeal was preferred against the aforesaid judgment;

(xvii) that the plaintiff, on 1st March, 2005 got issued a legal notice claiming compensation and to which a reply dated 11th March, 2005 was given by the defendant No.5.

(2.)SUMMONS of the suit were issued. Written statement was filed by the defendants No.1 to 4, contending:
(i) that the suit is barred by Section 140 of the Delhi Police Act, 1978 having been instituted after more than three months from the date of acquittal of the plaintiff and no previous sanction from the Administrator has been obtained before filing the suit against the defendants No.2 to 4;

(ii) that no notice as required by Section 140 of Delhi Police Act and Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC), 1908 had been issued;

(iii) that the defendants No.1 to 4 acted in good faith in pursuance to their official duties and the suit is not maintainable under Section 138 of the Delhi Police Act;

(iv) that the FIR Nos.239/2002 and 542/2002 were counter FIRs and FIR No.239/2002 was still sub -judice;

(v) that in the judgment dated 5th March, 2004 in case FIR No.542/2002, the plaintiff had been acquitted, giving benefit of doubt to him and no adverse remarks had been made against the concerned police officials;

(vi) denying any mala fides and malice.

The defendant No.5 has also contested the suit by filing a written statement denying the claim of the plaintiff.

(3.)NEEDLESS to state that the plaintiff has filed replications to both the written statements.


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.