Delhi District Court
Inspector H.S. Chauhan vs State on 1 October, 2012
IN THE COURT OF SH. NARINDER KUMAR
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE (CENTRAL): DELHI
Crl. Rev. No.38/12
Inspector H.S. Chauhan ........Petitioner
Versus
State ........Respondent
J U D G M E N T
Present petition has been filed by the petitioner, who is Inspector in Delhi Police, challenging the order dt.19.05.2012 passed by learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate in Complaint Case no.34/01.
2. Vide impugned order, learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate has summoned the petitioner and another ASI Puran Chand (nonpetitioner) as accused in the said complaint observing that there is sufficient material to prima facie suggest that both of them committed offences U/s 218 and 466 read with Sec.34 IPC.
3. Above referred to Complaint Case No.34/01 came to be filed U/s 195 Cr.P.C., by learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate.
As per averments in the complaint, the facts read as under : "a) That the chargesheet in the matter was filed on 13.04.06 and the learned predecessor of the undersigned took cognizance of offences in the Crl. Rev. No.38/12 1 matter punishable U/s 3, 4 of Prize Chit Money Circulation (Banning) Act r/w Section 406/420 IPC against the accused persons. Thereafter, on 15.05.06, the specimen signatures of accused Luid Fernandez and Josphin Fernandez were taken and same were sent to FSL, Rohini with a view to have a report after comparison of the specimen signatures aforesaid with their admitted signatures. The documents in this regard were received in FSL, Rohini on 30.06.06 and in due course, FSL report was prepared by the said laboratory on 30.07.07.
b) When the matter came up for consideration on charge before the undersigned on 06.09.2010, the undersigned observed that the supplementary chargesheet in the matter was filed by Investigating Agency on 11.07.06, interalia mentioning therein that FSL result would be placed on record as and when the same was prepared. Finding that the FSL result was not there on record, the undersigned issued notice to the IO of the case for explaining the aforesaid position. A report was also called from DCP (Central) in this regard. DCP (Central) filed his report, interalia stating therein that further investigation in the matter was handed over to Inspector Hari Mohan Chauhan. Thereafter, Inspector Hari Mohan Chauhan was summoned in court for 24.12.2010. IO, Inspector Hari Mohan Chauhan submitted in court that after filing of the main chargesheet in the matter, he stood transferred from PS Prasad Nagar and thereafter did not keep track of the further investigation in the matter. He even did not offer to get the result collected and placed on record, as a consequence whereof the undersigned was constrained to call DCP (Central) in court. Thereafter, surprisingly, an unsealed envelope containing sealed FSL report and original papers of this matter were produced before this court by one ASI Pooran Chand. Alongwith the unsealed envelope, there was an undated application of ASI Pooran Chand. There was no judicial order on the said application for taking the said documents on record.
c) Thereafter, the undersigned directed DCP (Central) to conduct an enquiry as to under what circumstances the said unsealed envelope remained pending with ASI Pooran Chand. The matter was fixed for 03.03.2011, on which date ASI Pooran Chand produced two registers before the undersigned. One was a common Stationery Register, bearing title, "Result Distribution Register 2007", in respect of PS Prasad Nagar and the Crl. Rev. No.38/12 2 other being "Daily Dairy Register", purportedly being maintained in PS Prasad Nagar under Rule 22.50 of Punjab Police Rules. The attention of the undersigned was drawn to entries in the aforesaid two registers. The entries in the aforesaid two registers were found to be highly suspicious, giving rise to the fact that the same were created later on by Inspector Hari Mohan Chauhan and ASI Pooran Chand to defraud this court and to make it appar as if the FSL result was collected by ASI Pooran Chand from the malkhana of PS Prasad Nagar and was filed in the court of Sh. Ajay Garg, Ld. MM on 20.05.08. The entry in "Result Distribution Register 2007" was not found in seriatum. It does not bear any date of receipt of FSL result, whereas Daily Diary Entry in the Daily Diary Register in Book NO.6758, on page 078 at entry no.54 does not bear the FIR Number of the present case. The aforesaid entries are found to be prima facie forged, thereby giving an indication that the Rojnamchas have been tampered with by aforesaid two police officers, with a view to defraud this court and hamper the administration of justice.
d) Thereafter, enquiry was conducted by DCP (Central) and a report dt.30.03.2011 was filed in the court, interalia stating therein that there were lapses on the part of ASI Pooran Chand and Inspector Hari Mohan Chauhan in not placing the FSL result in the matter on record and as such, a departmental enquiry against both of them was proposed.
e) It is submitted that statement of Sh. Ashok Kumar, Ahlmad, posted in the court of Sh. Ajay Garg, Ld. MM01 (Central) was recorded in the matter on 31.03.2011, who stated that he had no idea as to how the said documents were put in the court, presided over by Sh. Ajay Garg, Ld. MM."
4. Learned counsel for petitioner has contended that the petitioner was assigned further investigation of the matter and during that period, he presented challan in Court but inadvertently he could not follow up the presentation of the FSL report in Court only because he stood transferred from the concerned police station.
Crl. Rev. No.38/12 3
The contention raised by learned counsel for petitioner is that in the given situation, no criminal intent could be attributed to the accusedpetitioner.
Further it has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate filed complaint under Section 195 CrPC but no inquiry was conducted by ACMM. The contention is that since no inquiry was conducted by learned CMM, under Section 340 CrPC, and the complaint was only on the basis of suspicion, there was no sufficient material to proceed against the petitioner and as such impugned order is liable to be set aside.
In the course of arguments, even learned Addl. PPrespondent submitted that learned ACMM has ordered for issuance of process to the accused petitioner only on suspicion and that for the purpose of Section 218 and 466 CrPC, there should have been cogent and convincing evidence to show involvement of the petitioner. Learned Addl. PP further submitted that at any point of time learned ACMM did not obtain specimen handwriting of the petitioner or got the same despatched to the FSL so as to prima facie show involvement or connivance of the petitioner.
It has further been submitted that there is nothing on record to suggest that any inquiry under Section 340 CrPC was conducted by the complainantLearned CMM.
5. Learned Addl. PP has also referred to the inquiry conducted by ACP Crl. Rev. No.38/12 4 wherein it has been observed that there was only irregularity on the part of the Inspector and the other accused namely ASI Puran Chand, in not filing FSL report before the Court, and further that Departmental Inquiry has already been initiated. Further it has been submitted that there being no sufficient material available on record, the impugned order deserves to be set aside.
6. A perusal of Trial Court would reveal that challan in case FIR No. 21/2006 under Section 3, 4 of Prize Chits and Money Circulation Scheme (Banning) Act and 406 and 420 of IPC was presented on 13.04.2006. Inspector H. S. Chauhan was one of the IO of the said case. During investigation of the case, material documents were seized and sent to FSL for analysis.
7. Supplementary chargesheet was filed by investigating agency on 11.07.2006 wherein it was specified that documents and specimen handwriting of the accused had been sent to FSL, Delhi for comparison and that FSL result would be filed on receipt. This supplementary challan was submitted in the Court of Ms. Raj Rani Mitra, the then learned MM.
8. As per order dated 06.10.2010, DCP (Central) filed report interalia submitting therein that further investigation was handed over to Inspector Hari Mohan Chauhan, who was during those days posted as SHO PS Pahar Ganj. Accordingly, as per directions of the Court, Inspector Hari Mohan Chauhan appeared in Court and submitted that after filing of the charge sheet in the matter, he stood transferred from PS Prasad Nagar and could not keep track of Crl. Rev. No.38/12 5 the further investigation in the matter.
On the very next date i.e. 07.01.2011, Inspector H. S. Chauhan placed on record copy of FSL report dated 30.07.2007 with attested copies of documents. Original documents were still not placed on record.
Learned CMM directed the DCP (Central) to explain conduct of the SHO in not collecting FSL report in time and in its nonproduction before the Court. As a result, disposal of the case got delayed.
This Court has gone through the report dated 07.01.2011 submitted by Inspector H. S. Chauhan wherein he submitted that forged document were sent to FSL Rohini and received back at PS Prasad Nagar but the same were not traceable.
He further submitted that he had collected attested copies of FSL report as well as copies of the forged documents. With this report, he submitted copy of FSL report and photocopy of the alleged forged documents.
A perusal of copy of FSL report would reveal that documents were received at FSL on 30.06.2006.
As noticed above, supplementary report was forwarded by the SHO on 03.07.2006 mentioning therein that documents had been sent to FSL for analysis.
Trial Court record of case FIR No. 21/2006 would further reveal that on 22.01.2011 one unsealed envelope containing sealed envelope report and Crl. Rev. No.38/12 6 original documents were placed before learned CMM. These were accompanied by an application of ASI Puran Chand. Learned ACMM observed in the order dated 22.01.2011 that there was no order on the said application filed by ASI Puran Chand which created doubt if actually these documents were put up in the Court by ASI Puran Chand.
9. Learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Addl. PP have submitted that actually these documents and FSL came to be presented in the Court of Ajay Kmar Gupta, MM, Delhi on or about 20.05.2008 as earlier the case was pending in the Court of Sh. Ajay Kumar, Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi.
9. File reveals that earlier the case was pending in the Court of Sh. Ajay Kumar Gupta, Metropolitan Magistrate and for the first time, file was directed to be laid before Learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate vide order dated 23.08.2010.
It is not case of the complainant that original documents and the FSL result were collected by Inspector H. S. Chauhan from FSL and then retained by him.
10. In case the petitioner had any criminal intent or malafide intention, he would not have rushed to FSL and collected attested copies of FSL report and those of the document and submitted the same to the Learned CMM on 07.01.2011. It cannot be said that Inspector played any role in getting presented the document and the FSL report in the court of Sh. Ajay Kumar Gupta, Crl. Rev. No.38/12 7 Metropolitan Magistrate at any point of time or in connivance with ASI Puran Chand.
No step was taken by learned CMM before filing the complaint to obtain specimen handwriting of Inspector H. S. Chauhan and to send the same to FSL for comparison with contents of the application which came to be filed in the Court of Sh. Ajay Kumar Gupta, MM or register seized during enquiry.
11. When Ahlmad of the Court of Sh. Ajay Kumar made specific statement before Learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate on 31.03.2011 that these documents were paginated by him, it can safely be said that the same were dealt in that court. He further stated to have handed over these documents to the Ahlmad of the Court of Learned CMM on the previous date of hearing i.e. prior to 31.03.2011. Although he could not tell as to how those documents came to be filed, without any material, it cannot be said that Inspector H. S. Chauhan played any role in submission of these documents and FSL report in Court of Sh. Ajay Kumar, MM at any point of time prior to his first appearance before the Court of learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi, to defraud the court of learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi.
Conclusion
12. In view of above discussion, this court finds that the impugned order dt. 19.05.2012, vide which the accused - petitioner has been summoned as an accused is without basis and suffers from illegality and the same deserves to be Crl. Rev. No.38/12 8 set aside qua the petitioner. Accordingly, revision petition is allowed while setting aside impugned order qua the petitioner, and the petitioner is discharged.
Trial Court Record be sent back. Revision petition be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in Open Court
on 01.10.2012 (Narinder Kumar )
Additional Sessions Judge(Central)
Delhi.
Crl. Rev. No.38/12 9