Delhi Additional Sessions Judge convicts DCP, ACP of Delhi for contempt of court

IN THE COURT OF SMT. PRATIBHA RANI, 
DJ­III ­CUM­ I/C ASJ (WEST), DELHI
***
M No. 12/09
D.N. Joshi, Advocate & Anr.
……….Petitioners
Versus
Sh. Sharad Aggarwal, I.P.S. & Ors. 
………Respondents
****
M No.3/2010
Smt. Meena Sen & Anr.
……….Petitioners
Versus
Smt. Damini & Anr. 
………Respondents
****
ORDER
An application under Sec. 12 of Contempt of Courts
Act   1971   for   initiating   contempt   proceedings   against   the
respondents has been  filed by Sh. D.N. Joshi  and Daya Ram
Badalia,  Advocates.    During  the pendency of   this application,
another   application  was   filed   by  Smt.  Meena  Sen   and   her
husband Sh.  Ramesh Chandra Sen with  identical  prayer  and
this application was also ordered  to be put  up with connected
matter.

2. In  the present  case,   the short  question  involved  iswhether arrest of Deepak Sen (husband), Ramesh Chand Sen
(father­in­law)   and   Smt   Meena   Sen   (mother­in­law)   on
10.8.2009  in FIR No.122/09 under Sec.406/498­A/34  IPC,  PS
Tilak Nagar pending hearing of application for anticipatory bail,
was  justified.     In  the  instant   case,   though  the permission  to
arrest   the  main   accused   i.e.   the   husband  was   obtained   on
17.6.2009 but no arrest was made and permission to arrest the
collateral accused was obtained from the DCP on 7.8.2009 and
the main accused as well as the collateral accused have been
arrested on 11.08.2009 just a day before settlement/hearing of
the anticipatory bail application by this Court.

3. Perusal  of   record   reveals   that   the application  for
anticipatory bail was filed on 30.6.2009.   on 1.7.2009 Sh. R.S.
Goswami,   Advocate   for   complainant   Smt.   Damini   Chawla
appeared   in   Court.   Counsel   for   the   complainant   took   the
initiative and Applicants agreed to have meeting in the office of
Counsel for the complainant on 8.7.2009 and application for bail
was adjourned to 10.7.2009.   On 10.7.2009 the Court directed
both  the parties  to appear  before Mediation Cell,  Tis Hazari
Courts   on   14.7.2009   and   bail   application  was   adjourned   to
17.7.2009.    The matter  could not  be settled  in Mediation Cell
but  at   the  request  of   the parties,   to make  further  efforts  for
settlement,   the  hearing   of  bail  application  was   adjourned  to
4.8.2009  and then to 12.8.2009.

4. In   the  meantime   all   three   above   accused   were
arrested on 11.8.2009.

5. In  reply  to application  for   contempt  of  Court,  Sh.Sharad Aggarwal ­ DCP, Param Aditya – ACP, Inspector Satya
Dev Dahiya and ASI  Joginder  Singh Rathi  all  have shown a
defiant  mood   that   they   did   nothing   wrong   in   arresting   the
accused persons as there was no protection from Court.   They
have   raised   all   possible   technical   objections   such   as   non­
compliance of  Order  27­A CPC,  Section 140 of  D.P.  Act  and
Sec.80 CPC without  realising  that Order 27 CPC and Section
80 CPC applies to Civil Court and not Criminal Court.   Section
140 of D.P. Act applies to acts done in discharge of duties and
not acts done in violation of law. 

6. On merits, I may mention that power to arrest and
justification of arrest are two different things.   The power must
be exercised sparingly. This is more so in case of matrimonial
disputes which are defiant.  In such cases arrest may add to the
agony of parties and spoil the chances of reconciliation.  That is
why   order   No.330/2007   dated   8.11.2007   was   issued   by
Commissioner of Police, restructuring powers to arrest in such
cases. In the case Chander Bhan Vs. State 151 (2008) DLT 691
Hon’ble High Court  of  Delhi   laid down guidelines  for arrest   in
such cases.   But all those were put on a side in this case.

7. Though the IO took permission to arrest but copies
thereof placed on record show that they are empty formalities.
The sanctioning authority did not care to see and  find out how
the   proceedings   were   going   on,   whether   there   was   any
prospect  of  settlement.    It  did not  call   the complainant  or  her
counsel   to  find out   if  complainant  was serious  in pressing  for
arrest  of  accused when hearing was  listed  for  12.08.2009  for settlement/arguments on anticipatory bail application.  It granted
permission  in per­functory  manner  as   if  permission  is   to be
granted  in each and every case merely on being asked.   The
order   is as short  as  ‘As Proposed”.    This defeated  the very
purpose with which administrative  instructions were  issued by
Commissioner of Police and Judicial guidelines were laid down
by Hon’ble High Court.

8. The sanctioning authority did not bother to see that
if bail has not been granted, it had not been dismissed also and
efforts   for   settlement   by   both   the   parties  was   a   continuous
process and date was already  fixed  for settlement/arguments.
After   all   there  must   have   been   some   cogent   reasons   for
adjourning the bail application. The sanctioning authority ought
to have tried to find out those reasons. It did not apply its mind
to the facts of the case and acted blindly in granting permission
to arrest. This   speaks   volumes   about   how  irresponsible   the
DCP must have been acting in matters which are not pending
before Court.

9. The persons arrested were senior  citizens one of
whom was lady. They had status in society. One of them was
arrested  from his office  in Jodhpur,  Rajasthan.    The  lady was
arrested from School, she is operating, in front of her students.
The arrest caused immense damage to them.

10. What   is more painful   is  that  Sanctioning Authority
has not realised even now that matter has already been settled.
First  motion  for  divorce by mutual  consent  was  recorded on
18.1.2009 and petition for quashing FIR was filed in the Hon’ble High Court in November, 2009.

11. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner has relied up on Arts
and   Commerce   College,   Pen,   District   Raigad   Vs.   State   of
Maharashtra & Ors. 1994 Cri.L.J. 172; Km. Shakuntala & Ors.
Vs. The State of U.P. & Ors. 1996 Cri.L.J. 1774; Tapan Kumar
Mukherjee Vs. Sri Heromoni Mondal & Anr. AIR 1991 SC 281;
In re Sanjiv Datta & Ors. 1995 Cri.L.J. 2910; Ms. Sophy Kelly
and Anr. Vs. Chandrakant & Ors. AIR 1999 SC 1042; Afzal  &
Anr. Vs. State of Haryana & Ors. 1996 Cri.L.J. 1679; Union of
India  & Ors.  Vs.  Subedar  Devassy  PV AIR  2006  SC  909;
Tukaram etc.  Vs.  Santosh Mahadeorao Sayam & Ors.  1995
Cri.L.J.   57;   Sudhakar   Mahadeorao   Kawale   Vs.   State   of
Maharashtra & Anr. 1994 Cri.L.J. 735; T.M.A. Pai Foundation &
Ors.  Vs.  State of  Karnataka & Ors.  1995 Cri.L.J.  3220;  and
Bank of  Baroda Vs.  Sadruddin Hasan Daya & Anr.   (2004)  1
SCC 360 in support of his contentions that all the respondents
are   liable   to   be   punished   for   committing   the   contempt   by
arresting the Applicants during pendency of the bail application.

12. In the the case Chander Bhan & Anr. Vs. State151
(2008)  DLT 691,  Hon’ble Mr.   Justice Kailash Gambhir  while
expressing serious concern on the issue involved observed that
what  is not comprehended by young minds while  invoking  the
provisions of the likes of Sections 498­A and 406 of IPC is that
these provisions to a large extent have done incalculable harm
in   breaking  matrimony   of   the   couples.     It   has   been   further
observed that despite the western culture influencing the young
minds of our country, still it has been seen that Indian families value  their  own age old  traditions and culture,  where,  mutual respect,   character   and  morals   are   still   kept   at   a   very   high pedestal.   I would like to refer to paras 10 and 1 of the report
which is as under :­
“10. It  has been noticed  in diverse cases,
where   the   brides   and   their   family  members   in
litigation  find  the doors of  conciliation shut   from
the side of groom and his family members only on
account   of   there   having   suffered   the   wrath   of
Police harassment   first  at   the stage when matter
is pending before Crime against Women Cell and
thereafter   at   the   time   of   seeking   grant   of
anticipatory or regular bail and then the ordeal of
long drawn trial. 

11. Daily,  matters come before  this Court
seeking bail  and  for  quashing of  FIRs  registered
under Section 498­A/406 of the IPC.  This Court is
of   the view  that   it   is essential   to  lay down some
broad guidelines  and  to give directions   in  such
matters in order to salvage and save the institution
of   marriage   and   matrimonial   homes   of   the
couples.”

13. Reverting  to  the facts of  the present case, I am of
the considered view that the directions given above by Hon’ble
High Court  of  Delhi  have been violated by  the  respondents.
The Sanctioning Authority  is  trying  to  justify  its action.    This
shows that it has scant regard for process of law and decision
of   Hon’ble   High   Court.   I   find   it   a   fit   case   for   informing
Commissioner of Police as to how his subordinates are working.
I  hope  that   the Commissioner of  Police would personally  look
into  the matter  and  take strong action against  defiant  officers
under intimation to undersigned.

It would also be appropriate to bring this matter to the notice of
Hon’ble High Court about  the  insensitive attitude of the senior
police   officers   while   dealing   with   such   matters   in   flagrant
violations of the directions of Hon’ble High Court.  Hence a copy
hereof be sent to the Registrar General, High Court of Delhi for
being placed before Hon’ble Mr. Kailash Gambhir, Judge, High
Court  of  Delhi  whose Lordship showed utmost  concern about
the matter and took initiative of laying down detailed guidelines
for   all   concerned.   The   applications   stand   disposed   of
accordingly.

Announced in the open Court
24.4.2009 ( PRATIBHA RANI )
                                                DJ­III­cum­I/c ASJ(W)/Delhi