Punjab-Haryana High Court
Prithvi Raj Sehgal vs State Of Punjab And Ors. on 22 February, 2007
Equivalent citations: (2007)146PLR460
Author: Satish Kumar Mittal
Bench: Satish Kumar Mittal
JUDGMENT Satish Kumar Mittal, J.
1. Petitioner Prithvi Raj Sehgal is an old man of near-about 65 years. He retired as Junior Engineer in 1998 from Punjab Irrigation Department, Patiala. He was married 36 years back with Chander Mohini Sehgal/respondent No. 2-complainant. He is having two sons. The elder is near-about 34 of age and younger is 31 years old. After retirement, he has settled at Faridabad with his elder son Navin Sehgal, who got married the girl of his choice.
2. After 33 years of the marriage, respondent No. 2 filed a written complaint to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Patiala against petitioner Prithvi Raj Sehgal, Navin Sehgal, son of the petitioner and Balbir Singh, father-in-law of Navin Sehgal, on the basis of which, F.I.R. No. 64 dated 6.4.1999 under Sections 406/498A/506 I.P.C. was registered at Police Station Civil Lines, Patiala. It was alleged in the complaint that the petitioner has been ill-treating her, did not give money for use for her living, quarrel with her and demanded to bring some more money from her parents. It was further alleged that on her refusal, she was given beatings and when she demanded her dowry articles given to the petitioner at the time of her marriage, he refused to return the same.
3. During the course of investigation, the allegations made by the complainant were found to be false and the accused were found to be innocent, A cancellation report was submitted to the Court on 6.9.1999, copy of this has been annexed with this petition as Annexure P-2. In the cancellation report, the investigating agency gave a finding that the petitioner was married to the complainant about 30 years back and her parents had died more than 15 years back. It was also found that during the married life of 30 years, the petitioner did not demand any dowry from the complainant. In fact the root cause for the dispute is inter-caste marriage of Navin Sehgal with one Mandeep Kaur, daughter of Balbir Singh, against the wishes of the complainant.
4. The Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Patiala did not accept the said report and ordered for re-investigation of the matter by the police vide his order dated 21.8.2000, which is reproduced below:
Statement of complainant recorded. In view of the statement of the complainant and in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the present case is sent for reinvestigation to S.S.P., Patiala through proper channel who shall get the case reinvestigated and the S.S.P. may present his report within 3 months from today.
Thereafter, the matter was re-investigated. Again the police found the allegation to be false and the accused innocent, and submitted the cancellation report on 9.2.2001, copy of which has been annexed with this petition as Annexure P-3. But the complainant made a written application to the Sessions Judge, Patiala, who vide his order dated 18.10.2001 directed the Senior Superintendent of Police, Patiala to make a detailed enquiry into the complaint and submit the detailed enquiry report to the court. In view of the said order, the matter was again re-investigated by the police. The findings given in the second cancellation report were reiterated and the said cancellation report was submitted to the court. But the J.M.I.C., Patiala vide his order dated 5.8.2003, again did not accept the said cancellation report and again sent the matter for re-investigation by the police, while observing as under:
Complainant suffered statement on 10.02.2003 that she does not satisfied with the investigation conducted by the police and want to pursue the case. In view of the statement, present case is ordered to be sent back to the police station, Civil Lines, Patiala, through S.S.P. Patiala, for reinvestigation. Ahlmad is directed to send cancellation report to the police stating civil lines, Patiala, after making relevant entry in the register.
The petitioner has challenged the said order, and has also prayed for quashing of the aforesaid F.I.R. and all the subsequent proceedings.
5. In this case, the complainant/respondent No. 2 was served and at one stage Mr. Vi-jay Sharma, Advocate, appeared for the complainant/respondent No. 2. I have heard the counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the respondent-State.
6. Counsel for the petitioner contended that the aforesaid F.I.R. has been registered at the fag end of the life of the petitioner by his wife levelling false allegations of harassment, demand of dowry and misappropriation of the dowry articles. The F.I.R. was registered in the year 1998. The investigation of the case has been conducted by different police officers at various stages. After thorough investigation, three times the police submitted the cancellation reports. The copies of the three cancellation reports submitted by the police are Annexures P-2, P-3, and P-4, and in all these three cancellation reports, the allegations levelled by the complainant/respondent No. 2 were found to be false.
Counsel for the petitioner, while referring to a decision of this Court in Harinder Pal Singh v. State of Punjab 2004(2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 307, submitted that in case the reinvestigation has been conducted twice or thrice by the police on the orders of the Magistrate, the Magistrate could not have ordered for re-investigation of the matter third or fourth time. In case he is not satisfied with the cancellation report, and is of the opinion that the allegations have not been properly gone into by the police and there is sufficient material on the record against the accused, he can take cognizance of the offence under Section 190(1)(c) of the Code of Criminal Procedure while not accepting the police report. But every time, he cannot reject the cancellation report submitted by the police and send the same for further reinvestigation and compel the investigating agency to submit the charge-sheet against the accused. Learned Counsel further submitted that while rejecting the cancellation reports, the Judicial Magistrate did not record any reasons. He simply stated that the complainant was not agreeing with the cancellation reports, therefore, the matter be sent for re-investigation. Learned Counsel submitted that in both the occasions, the Judicial Magistrate was not justified in not accepting the cancellation report of the police and sending the case for re-investigation. Learned Counsel further submitted that if the complainant is not satisfied with the cancellation report, she has an alternative remedy to file a private complaint, but merely on the asking of the complainant, a cancellation report submitted by the police, cannot be rejected.
7. After hearing the counsel for the parties and in the facts and circumstances of the case, I find merit in the contentions raised by the counsel for the petitioner. In this case, after 33 years of the marriage of the petitioner with the complainant, a complaint under Sections 406/498A/506 I.P.C. was filed by the complainant/respondent No. 2. Out of the wedlock, two children were born. In this case, three times, the police submitted cancellation reports after conducting thorough investigation by different police officers. The allegations levelled by the complainant were found to be false. The J.M.I.C, Patiala vide order dated 5.8.2003 rejected the cancellation report second time without application of mind, merely on the asking of the complainant that she was not satisfied with the investigation conducted by the police. Once a cancellation report is submitted to the Judicial Magistrate, he can reject the same by giving the reasons and refer the matter for further investigation; or he can take cognizance of the offence himself, but he cannot reject the cancellation report merely on the ground that the complainant is not satisfied with the investigation. It is within the purview of the investigating agency to investigate a case. The submission of the charge-sheet or the final report depends upon the nature of the opinion formed by the investigating agency. The Magistrate cannot compel the investigating agency to take a particular view in the investigation or to change its opinion so as to accord with the view of the Court. In Harinder Pal Singh's case (supra), it has been held by this Court as under:
In Chapter XIV of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code'), the police has been given ample powers for the purpose of registering the case involving a cognizable offence and its investigation. Section 173 of the Code provides for an investigation to be completed without unnecessary delay and also makes it obligatory on the Officer-in-charge of the Police Station to send a report to the magistrate concerned in the manner indicated therein, containing the various details. If the Police submits a report under Section 173 of the Code to the effect that a case is made out for sending\the accused for trial, the Magistrate is not bound to accept the opinion of the Police. It is open to the Magistrate, to take the view that the facts disclosed in the report do not make out an offence for taking cognizance or he may take the view that there is no sufficient evidence to justify and accused being put on trial. On the other hand, if the Magistrate agrees with the report, then he will take cognizance of the offence. In case, the Police submits a report stating therein that no case is made out against the accused for sending him for trial, the Magistrate, agreeing with the report, may accept the final report and close the proceedings, but the Magistrate may also take a view on consideration of the final report that the opinion framed by the Police is not based on full and complete investigation and in such a situation, the Magistrate can order for further investigation. It is always open for the Magistrate to decline to accept the closure report and direct the police to further investigate the matter but once the closure report is not accepted by the Magistrate and the matter has been ordered to be re-investigated, then for the second time the Magistrate cannot compel the Police to take a particular view in the matter and submit the challan in the case. If the Magistrate does not agree with the opinion formed by the Police and still suspects that an offence has been committed, he is entitled, notwithstanding the opinion of the Police, to take cognizance under Section 190(1)(c) of the Code, but in my opinion, he cannot direct the police to re-investigate the matter for the third time.
XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX Thus, from the aforesaid judgments, it is clear that the Police is the master of the investigation and formation of opinion as to whether, on the material collected, a case is made out to place the accused for trial is the exclusive function of the officer in charge of the Police Station and/or his superior officers. The Magistrate, while accepting or rejecting the report, cannot compel the investigating agency to change its opinion and to form a particular opinion or to submit the challan. The formation of the said opinion by the police is the final step in the investigation and that final step is to be taken only by the Police and not by other authority.
8. In light of the aforesaid legal position, the impugned orders passed by the J.M.I.C., Patiala, rejecting the cancellation reports submitted by the police, did not give any valid reasons. In the three cancellation reports annexed with the police, detailed reasons have been given by the investigating agency finding the accused innocent. The Judicial Magistrate has not gone through the contents of the cancellation reports and rejected the same arbitrarily while observing that the complainant is not satisfied with the police investigation. It is not the complainant, but the court, which is to be satisfied about the investigation conducted by the police in a case. If the Magistrate is not satisfied with the cancellation report submitted by the police, for some recorded reasons, he can reject the cancellation report and order for further investigation in the matter. But every time, he cannot reject the cancellation report arbitrarily and order for further investigation in the case by the police. In case the Magistrate is of the opinion that the cancellation report is not based on full and complete investigation and he is of the opinion that sufficient material against the accused is available on the record, he can take cognizance of the offence under Section 190(1) of the Code, but time and again he cannot order for re-investigation of the matter. In the facts of this case, particularly in view of the allegations made by the complainant after 33 years of the marriage, which have been investigated thrice by different police officers and found to be false, I do not find any reason not to accept the cancellation reports submitted by the police.
9. Hence, this petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 5.8.2003 passed by J.M.I.C, Patiala, is set aside and the cancellation report dated 17.11.2001 submitted by the police is hereby accepted. Consequently, F.I.R. No. 64 dated 6.4.1999 under Sections 406/498A/506 I.P.C. registered at Police Station Civil Lines, Patiala, and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, are hereby ordered to be dropped.