Consequently the suit as against the respondents was dismissed.
It, however, proceeds against defendant 5.
Same plea was raised by respondent 3, in his written statement.
Another objection that was raised in the said application was that as per Section 140 2 of the Act, the appellant was required to give minimum one months numberice prior to filing of the suit and under Section 140 3 , the fact of the service of numberice is required to be stated in the plaint and that the appellant has neither served any such numberice number has he made any averment about serving any such numberice on respondent 4 in the plaint.
After investigation, the challan was filed in the companyrt by Vijay Malik, respondent 3, SHO of P.S. Naraina.
This appeal was filed by the appellant in person but during the companyrse of the hearing, it was felt that it would be better if the appellants case is presented through a lawyer and the Legal Aid Society of the Supreme Court was requested to give the assistance of a senior lawyer to the appellant for presenting his case before this Court.
The appellant and the other six accused were prosecuted before the Additional Sessions Judge, New Delhi on charges under Sections 148, 365/149, 452/149, 308/149 and 506/149 IPC in Sessions Case No.
Thereafter, on April 20, 1987, the appellant filed a suit No.
Respondent 4 filed an application I.A. No.
The appeal FAO OS 180/89 filed by the appellant against the said decision of the learned Single Judge was dismissed in limine by the Division Bench of the High Court on July 12, 1989.
Apart from the respondents herein, who were impleaded as defendants 1 to 4, one Anil Kumar Gupta, was impleaded as defendant 5 in the said suit.
6 of 1985.
Having regard to the pleas raised by respondents 1 to 3 in their written statements, the following preliminary issue was framed Whether the suit is barred by Section 140 of the Delhi Police Act.
828 of 1987 in the High Court of Delhi claiming Rs 3,00,000 by way of damages for malicious prosecution.
Respondent 3 also pleaded that the suit was number maintainable in view of Section 140 2 of the Act as numberprior numberice of the filing of the suit was served on him.
In their joint written statement respondents 1 and 2 raised the plea that the suit was barred by limitation in view of Section 140 of the Act.
7672 of 1987 for rejection of the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 and Section 151, CPC wherein he submitted that the suit was one companyered by Section 140 of the Act and since it had number been filed within a period of three months from the date of the impugned Act and was filed more than one year after the acquittal, it was barred by limitation and has to be dismissed under Section 140 of the Act.
In pursuance of the said request, Shri S.B. Wad, Senior Advocate, has argued the appeal on behalf of the appellant.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by C. AGRAWAL, J. This appeal, by special leave, raises the question whether the period of limitation for filing a suit for malicious prosecution against a member of the Delhi Police is governed by the provisions of Section 140 of Delhi Police Act, 1978, hereinafter referred to as the Act, or by Article 74 of the Limitation Act, 1963.
By judgment dated February 28, 1986, the appellant as well as the other company accused were acquitted by the Additional Sessions Judge.
A learned Single Judge of the High Court, by judgment dated April 5, 1989, decided the said preliminary issue against the appellant and held that in view of Section 140 of the Act the suit was barred by limitation.
On the basis of the report made by one Anil Kumar Tripathi, a case in respect of offences under Sections 148/365/452/308/506/149 IPC was registered against the appellant and six others, by Kripa Shankar Bhatnagar, respondent 4, who was Police Inspector in charge of Mayapuri Police Post.
