M.L. Jain, J.
(1) The matter starts like this. On 2.6.1983 Mohd. Usman of Nangloi, Delhi, informed the police station Nangloi at 10.50 P.M. that the petitioner No. 1 Ishwar Singh @ Langra the actually seems to be lame) Along with the other persons abused the local Muslim community and threatened them that he would not allow them to stay in Camp No. 2, Nangloi. Asi Dalel Singh rushed to the spot. Petitioner No. 1 slipped away from the spot, but Vijinder and Hawa Singh petitioners Nos. 2 and 3 were found abusing the Muslims of the area and were threatening them with dire consequences. There was every likelihood of the breach of peace. Asi Dalel Singh took Vijinder and Hawa Singh into custody. Against them the Assistant Commissioner of Police started proceedings under sections 107/151 Cr. P.C. Bailable warrant was issued by him on 5.6.1983 against Ishwar Singh.
(2) On 8.6.1983 Ishwar Singh and the two petitioners filed the present petition under section 482 Cr. P.C. against the police with the prayer that the proceedings pending before the Assistant Commissioner of Police be quashed and that Ishwar Singh be provided with police protection.
(3) It is stated in this petition that he was an Assistant Fire Inspector in the Railways but suffered an accident and his one leg was amputated. He started a firm Haryana Builders at Rohtak Road, with his godown at J.J. Colony, Nangloi, and cement business under the name of Chaudhary Trading Co. As his business picked up, the police started demanding unlawful gratification. On his refusal, the police began to harass him and instituted 17 cases against him within the period from 10.3.1975 to18.7.81. They included charges of rape and vagrancy. All these cases have terminated in his favor except the proceedings under the Delhi Police Act and sections 107/151 Cr. P.C.
(4) On 28.5.1982 and 22.7.1982 the Supreme Court has passed orders that if any case or cases are registered against petitioner No. 1 or any member of his family by the Nangloi Police, the investigation thereof shall be handed over to another police station to be nominated by the Deputy Commissioner of Police in-charge. Even then, the police lifted him from his place at 11.00 A.M. on 20.8.1982, dragged him to the Nangloi police station and subjected him to the torture resulting into 15 injuries. The police also framed a case against him under sections 363/366/376/343/506/35 Indian Penal Code in which he got anticipatory bail on 25.8.1982. On 29.8.1982 the police made one Rahimuddin to lodge a false report. On 30.8.1982 at 2.30 A.M. another report was lodged at Sultanpuri Police Station at the instance of Sho Hawa Singh Rana in pursuance of which proceedings under sections 107/151 Cr. P.C. were instituted against him. These were stayed on 8.11.1982 by the High Court in Cr. Misc. (M) 541/82.
(5) On 26.9.1982 at 7.00 P.M. some miscreants entered his shop and began to give him lathi blows. His wife rushed to his rescue. Some neighbours also in the meanwhile collected. The offenders escaped with the entire cash and wrist watch, but they left their Vespa Scooter behind which was subsequently seized by Inspector Rohtas Singh of Mangolpuri Police Station. The local police refused to record his report. He brought the matter to the notice of the senior police officers and on 27.9.1982 his report was recorded but the case has made no progress.
(6) On 4.4.1983 the police swooped on his house and beat him and his wife. They carried him to the police station, further tortured him and framed up a case under section 160 IPC. On 7.5.1983 and 11.5.1983 at the instigation of the police the petitioner No. 1 was attacked but the police took no action. He had to flee from Nangloi to Kishanganj in order to perform his daughter's marriage on 26.5.1983. His nephews petitioners 2 and 3 had come in connection with the marriage to Nangloi and where arrested along with two casual Muslim employees Nanne and Talwar under secs. 107/151 Cr. P.C. vide D.D. dated 2.6.1983 and on 3.6.1983 they were paraded in handcuffs. They were however, allowed to be released on furnishing security of Rs.5000.00 each. Bail bonds were produced twice before respondent No. 3, but the same were arbitrarily rejected and petitioners 2 and 3 were sent to judicial custody. They have been released on 21.6.1983. But the where about of the other two employees arc still unknown. The petitioner I apprehended grave danger to his life and property and sought protection from the High Court by moving a writ petition No. 58/83 but it was dismissed.
(7) On 26.9.1983 the Nangloi police raided his business premises at 10.30 P.M.
(8) The reply of the police to these allegations of the petitioners is that they are baseless and misbievous. He is engaged in criminal activities and the police has to take action against him under sections 107/151 Cr. PC. off and on. The police pray that the petition be dismissed.
(9) It was urged before me that the present proceedings under sections 107/151 Cr.P.C. instituted on 2.6.1983 and pending before the Assistant Commissioner should be quashed because these were lodged by Nangloi police in clear violation of the orders of the Supreme Court. As far as this grievance is concerned, the learned Public Prosecutor maintained that the Supreme Court orders did not cover security proceedings. However, in this regard the petitioner can and should move the Supreme Court for appropriate action. With regard to the submission that in the aforesaid background the proceedings against him should be quashed, no case seems to have been made out. For the present, it seems that the police got concerned as the occurrence was taking a communal colour which it is desirable to prevent. I would, thereforee, not like to intervene in a case of this kind at this stage. The petitioners should appear before the Addl. Commissioner of Police for further proceedings. During these proceedings, the petitioner No. 1 shall remain enlarged if he files a personal bond for appearance in the amount Rs. 2000.00 without any surety and if he does so, he shall not be arrested in connection with these proceedings till they are concluded.
(10) The petition shall stand disposed of accordingly.