9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the offence in question is cognizable or non-cognizable. 2. Whether the kalendra filed by the police can be considered a police report or a complaint. 3. The procedural correctness of the Magistrate's handling of the case. Detailed Analysis: 1. Cognizability of the Offence: The primary issue is whether the offence under Section 97 of the Delhi Police Act is cognizable or non-cognizable. Section 93 of the Act criminalizes misbehavior with intent to provoke a breach of peace in public places. Section 97 prescribes penalties for such offences, punishable with a fine of up to Rs. 100 or imprisonment for up to eight days. According to Section 59 of the Act, a police officer can arrest without a warrant if the offence is committed in their presence. However, the High Court determined that since the power to arrest without a warrant is limited to specific circumstances (i.e., the offence being committed in the officer's presence), the offence under Section 97 is non-cognizable. This conclusion aligns with the definitions in Section 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, where a non-cognizable offence is one for which a police officer has no authority to arrest without a warrant unless specified by law. 2. Nature of the Kalendra: The second issue is whether the kalendra (report) filed by the police qualifies as a police report under Section 173(2) of the Code or a complaint under Section 2(d). The court noted that for non-cognizable offences, a police officer cannot investigate without the Magistrate's permission as per Section 155 of the Code. The investigation conducted without such permission is illegal, but this does not preclude the Magistrate from taking cognizance of the offence. The Supreme Court in H.N. Rishbud v. State of Delhi held that defects in investigation do not affect the court's jurisdiction to take cognizance. The High Court concluded that the kalendra should be treated as a complaint, not a police report, especially given the Explanation added to the definition of "complaint" in the Code, which clarifies that a police report on a non-cognizable offence is deemed a complaint. 3. Procedural Handling by the Magistrate: The third issue concerns the procedural handling of the case by the Magistrate. The High Court criticized the Magistrate for not utilizing Sections 260 and 206 of the Code, which allow for summary trials and special summons in petty cases. The Magistrate's repeated adjournments caused undue harassment and hardship to the petitioner. The court emphasized the need for expeditious handling of minor offences to avoid unnecessary delays and expenses. Given the prolonged nature of the proceedings and the minor penalty involved, the High Court decided to quash the further proceedings against the petitioner to serve the interests of justice. Conclusion: The judgment concluded that the offence under Section 97 of the Delhi Police Act is non-cognizable, the kalendra filed by the police is to be treated as a complaint, and the Magistrate's handling of the case was procedurally flawed. The High Court quashed the proceedings against the petitioner, emphasizing the need for expeditious disposal of minor cases.
|
