Gujarat High Court
Dinesh vs State on 20 February, 2010
Author: M.R. Shah
Bench: M.R. Shah
CR.MA/3375/2010 18/ 18 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION No. 3375 of 2010 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH ========================================= 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ? 4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ? 5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ? ========================================= DINESH B BARWALIA - Applicant(s) Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & 1 - Respondent(s) ========================================= Appearance : MR IH SYED for Applicant(s) : 1, MR JASWANT K SHAH, APP for Respondent(s) : 1, MR KB ANANDJIWALA for Respondent(s) : 2, ========================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH Date : 17/01/2012 ORAL JUDGMENT
1. The present Criminal Miscellaneous Application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been preferred by the applicant-original accused no. 2 to quash and set aside the impugned Complaint filed by respondent no. 2 in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gandhinagar for the offences punishable under Sections 166, 167, 177, 182, 195, 196, 199, 341, 342, 211, 217, 218, 219, 120B, 469, 471, 114 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code which has been registered as Criminal Inquiry Case No. 202/2012 and also to quash and set aside the impugned order dated 20/02/2010 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gandhinagar ordering investigation by the Dy. S.P, Gandhinagar under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure below the said Complaint.
2. The facts leading to the present Criminal Miscellaneous Application in a nutshell are as under;
2.1. One Shri Ajit D. Padiwal, learned advocate, who was practicing in Gujarat High Court (now deceased), preferred Special Civil Application No. 13258/1994 by way of Public Interest Litigation before this Court on the basis of the newspaper report against the issuance of non-bailable warrant against the high dignitaries of the Maharashtra State by the Judicial Magistrate at Dakore alleging that in the Dakore Court in District Kheda warrants are being issued against anyone and every one just for asking and all that has to be done is to file a Complaint of whatsoever nature. In the said petition, the original petitioner prayed for the following directions;
"13(A) Your Lordships be pleased to direct appropriate proceedings be initiated against the person involved in the 'scandal of warrants' like initiating criminal prosecution and/or disciplinary proceedings under the Advocates Act, 1961 read with the Bar Council of Gujarat Rules and/or initiating contempt proceedings for the act of perjury, in the larger interest of the institution and the public at large, by issuing a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction of this Hon'ble High Court.
(B) Your Lordships be pleased to direct that appropriate inquiry be held by the concerned respondents/competent authorities with regard to the 'scandal of warrants' as per the news report at Annexure - A colly, and further be pleased to direct the concerned respondents to place the persons under suspension/to suspend the sanad of all concerned Advocates involved in the 'scandal of warrants' as per the news report at Annexure - A colly, by issuing appropriate writ, order or direction of this Hon'ble High Court.
(C) Your Lordships be pleased to direct the concerned respondents to hold appropriate inquiry with regard to the 'scandal of warrants' as per the news report at Annexure - A colly. And be pleased to direct the concerned respondents to submit the report in that regard to this Hon'ble High Court by issuing a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction of this Hon'ble High Court.
(D) Your Lordships be pleased to forthwith direct the concerned respondents to place the concerned persons under suspension/to suspend the sanad of the concerned Advocates involved in the 'scandal of warrants' as per the news report at Annexure - A colly. to the petition, pending the final disposal of this petition.
(E) Your Lordships be pleased to grant any such other and further reliefs as thought fit and proper, in the interest of justice."
2.2. It appears that the aforesaid Public Interest Litigation petition was heard by the Division Bench of this Court and time to time status reports were being submitted before the Division Bench with respect to the investigation carried out by the concerned Investigating Officer and it was also submitted that the Complaint/FIR, being C.R. No. 1/1995 has been registered with the CID Crime Zone Police Station, Vadodara on 03/02/1995 against 19 accused persons for the offence punishable under Sections 120B, 489, 348, 465, 466, 468, 471, 474, 409 and 410 and it appears that the investigation of the said FIR was carried out by the applicant, who submitted various status reports before the Division Bench of this Court. During the course of the investigation of the said FIR, the applicant, being the Investigating Officer, found that respondent no. 2-original complainant is also one of the accused, who played the vital role in obtaining the warrants and executed the same with a view to favour other accused persons. It was also reported to the Division Bench of this Court with respect to the role played by respondent no. 2-original complainant. It appears that thereafter respondent no. 2-original complainant was apprehending arrest in connection with the aforesaid FIR, being C.R. No. 1/1995 and, therefore, he preferred anticipatory bail application before the learned Sessions Court, Vadodara and considering the specific role played by respondent no. 2 and considering the seriousness of the offence, the learned trial Court dismissed the said anticipatory bail application. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order passed by the learned trial Court rejecting the anticipatory bail application, respondent no. 2-original complainant preferred anticipatory bail application before this Court, which was rejected/dismissed by this Court. Thereafter, respondent no. 2 came to be arrested by the applicant, the Investigating Officer, in connection with FIR, being C.R. No. 1/1995 and thereafter he preferred regular bail application before the learned Sessions Court, which came to be rejected. Thereafter, respondent no. 2-original complainant came to be arrested and he was in judicial custody for approximately 82 to 85 days and thereafter he came to be released on bail by this Court. It appears that in the meantime, other accused persons of the aforesaid FIR, who were already arrested were chargesheeted. After conclusion of the inquiry, so far as respondent no. 2-original complainant is concerned, as he was arrested subsequently supplementary chargesheet has been filed against respondent no. 2-original complainant in the competent Court on 01/12/2004 and the trial against respondent no. 2-original complainant arising out of the aforesaid FIR, being C.R. No. 1/1995 is pending before the concerned trial Court. Thereafter, after a period of approximately six years after respondent no. 2-original complainant was arrested and chargesheeted before the competent Court, respondent no. 2-original complainant has filed the impugned Complaint, being Criminal Inquiry Case No. 202/2012 in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gandhinagar against the applicant and one another for the offences punishable under Sections 166, 167, 177, 182, 195, 196, 199, 341, 342, 211, 217, 218, 219, 120B, 469, 471, 114 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. In the said Complaint the learned Magistrate has passed an order for inquiry under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by Dy. S.P, Gandhinagar.
Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned Complaint as well as the impugned order passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gandhinagar ordering inquiry under Section 202, the applicant-original accused no. 2, the then Investigating Officer of the FIR/Complaint being, C.R. No. 1/1995, has preferred the present application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
3. Shri I. H. Saiyed, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the applicant-original accused no. 2 has vehemently submitted that the learned Magistrate has materially erred in taking cognizance of the said Complaint and passing an order for inquiry under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the Dy. S.P., Gandhinagar. It is submitted that as such as there was no verification of respondent no. 2-original complainant on oath on the Complaint as required under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and, therefore, the learned Magistrate ought not have taken cognizance of the said Complaint and ought not to have passed an order for inquiry under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Therefore, it is submitted that the impugned order passed by the learned Magistrate taking cognizance of the aforesaid Complaint and ordering inquiry under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the said Complaint deserves to be quashed and set aside on non- compliance of the mandatory requirement under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It is further submitted by Shri Saiyed, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the applicant-original accused no. 2 that even the learned Magistrate has not applied the mind to the contents and/or averments and allegation made in the Complaint and without proper application of mind to the substance of the Complaint, the learned Magistrate has mechanically passed an order under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure solely on the ground that the allegations made in the Complaint are against the high ranking Police Officers. In support of his above submission, Shri Saiyed, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the applicant-original accused no. 2 has heavily relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of S.W. Palanitkar and Ors Vs. State of Bihar and Anr. reported in (2002) 1 SCC 241.
3.1. Shri Saiyed, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the applicant-original accused no. 2 has further submitted that even otherwise considering the allegations and averments made in the Complaint, no prima facie case has been made out against the applicant-original accused no. 2 for the offences alleged in the said Complaint. It is submitted that on bare reading of the impugned Complaint it does not disclose even prima facie, commission of offences alleged and, therefore, it is submitted that to continue the criminal proceedings against the applicant-original accused no. 2 would be unnecessary harassment and abuse of process of law and Court and, therefore, relying upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana & ORS Vs. Bhajanlal & Ors. reported in AIR 1992 SC 604 it is requested to quash and set aside the impugned Complaint.
3.2. Shri Saiyed, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the applicant has further submitted that even otherwise the impugned Complaint is nothing but a vexatious Complaint and has been filed with a malafide intention to create evidence that respondent no. 2-original complainant is falsely implicated in the FIR/Complaint, being C.R. No. 1/1995 and he is falsely chargesheeted and he was falsely arrested in connection with the aforesaid Complaint/FIR though he was not named in the FIR and he has been falsely implicated in the case due to some dispute with applicant-original accused no. 2 and at his instance, respondent no. 2-original complainant was arrested and he has been chargesheeted. It is submitted by Shri Saiyed, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the applicant-original accused no. 2 that as such whatever has been done by the applicant-original accused no. 2 was while performing his duty as the Investigating Officer of the Complaint, being C.R. No. 1/1995 and during the course of the investigation he found that respondent no. 2-original complainant has also committed the offence and he has in fact taken active participation in the commission of offence, and, therefore, he was arrested and thereafter he has been chargesheeted before the competent Court. It is submitted that even anticipatory bail application submitted by respondent no. 2-original complainant came to rejected by the learned Sessions Court and thereafter by this Court considering the seriousness of the offence alleged to have been committed by respondent no. 2-original complainant and thereafter he was arrested and even his regular bail application was also dismissed by the learned Sessions Court and thereafter he came to be released by this Court. It is submitted that the entire investigation of the aforesaid FIR was reported by the applicant-original accused no. 2 before the Division Bench of this Court from time to time, inclusive of the role played by respondent no. 2 and the chargesheet file against him. It is submitted that in any case whether respondent no. 2-original complainant has committed any offence in connection with the Complaint, being C.R. No. 1/1995 for which he has been chargesheeted and/or whether he was falsely implicated in the case or not, all are his defenses, which are to be considered by the concerned trial Court at the time of trial. It is submitted that by way of the present impugned Complaint, respondent no. 2-original complainant wants parallel proceedings/trial and as such wants acquittal with respect to the criminal case pending against him arising out of the impugned Complaint/FIR, being C.R. No. 1/1995, which is not permissible. It is submitted that as such by way of present Complaint, respondent no. 2-original complainant wants to create his defense in the pending trial against him, which is not permissible. Under the circumstances, it is submitted that the impugned Complaint is nothing but an abuse of process of law and Court and the same has been file with a malafide intention and that too after a period of six years of filing of the chargesheet against him and after six years of his arrest and, therefore, it is requested to quash and set aside the impugned criminal proceedings as well as the order passed by the learned Magistrate ordering inquiry under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the said Complaint.
4. Shri K.B. Anadjiwala, learned advocate has appeared on behalf of respondent no. 2-original complainant, who is an accused in the criminal case arising out of the Complaint/impugned FIR, being C.R. No. 1/1995. Shri Anandjiwala, learned advocate appearing on behalf of respondent no. 2-original complainant has vehemently submitted that at this stage the learned Magistrate has passed an order for inquiry under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure only and pursuant to the same, the investigation is yet to be carried out by the Investigating Officer, which is yet to be considered by the learned Magistrate and, therefore, it is requested not to exercise the powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and not to quash and set aside the impugned criminal proceedings. Shri Anadjiwala, learned advocate appearing on behalf of respondent no. 2-original complainant has vehemently submitted that as such the allegations and averments made in the impugned Complaint discloses prima facie commission of cognizable offence, which are yet to be investigated and/or inquired into by the Investigating Officer as per the order passed by the learned Magistrate and, therefore, it is requested to dismiss the present application. No other submissions have been made.
5. Shri J.K. Shah, learned APP has appeared on behalf of the respondent-State and has requested to pass an appropriate order considering the facts and circumstances of the case.
6. Heard the learned advocates appearing on behalf of respective parties at length. This Court has gone through and considered the allegations and averments made in the impugned Complaint, which has been filed by respondent no. 2-original complainant, who is facing the trial for the offences punishable under Sections 120B, 489, 348, 465, 466, 468, 471, 474, 409 and 410 out of the impugned FIR/C.R. No. 1/1995 registered with CID Crime Zone Police Station, Vadodara. The sum and substance of the allegations made in the impugned Complaint by respondent no. 2-original complainant are as under;
that he has been falsely implicated in the case arising out of the impugned Complaint/FIR, being C.R. No. 1/1995;
that he has been falsely chargesheeted for the offences arising out of the aforesaid Complaint/FIR;
that he was falsely arrested in connection with the aforesaid FIR/Complaint, being C.R. No. 1/1995 by the applicant-original accused no. 2, the then Investigating Officer and that too when respondent no. 2-original complainant was not named in the FIR, he was arrested by the applicant-original accused no. 2 without prior permission of the State Government/competent authority;
that he was wrongly shown as absconding in the chargesheet filed against the other accused persons of the aforesaid FIR;
that he is arraigned as an accused at the instance of the applicant-original accused no. 2 as he had a rivalry animosity.
that the applicant-original accused no. 2 and another accused have exceeded their authority and/or misused their power while conducting the investigation of the aforesaid Complaint/FIR, being C.R. No. 1/1995.
7. Making the above allegations in the impugned Complaint, it is alleged by respondent no. 2-original complainant that the applicant-original accused no. 2 and one another have committed the offence under Sections 166, 167, 177, 182, 195, 196, 199, 341, 342, 211, 217, 218, 219, 120B, 469, 471, 114 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. In the said Complaint, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gandhinagar has passed an order for inquiry under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by observing that the allegations in the Complaint are against the high ranking Police Officers and, therefore, Dy. S.P. Gandhingar is directed to hold the inquiry and submit the report within 60 days. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned Complaint and the impugned order of inquiry under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure the applicant-original accused no. 2 has preferred the present application. It is not in dispute that as such there is no verification of the Complaint by respondent no. 2-original complainant on oath as required under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. As per Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure the Magistrate taking cognizance of the offence on Complaint shall examine upon oath the complainant and the witnesses present, if any. In the present case, as stated hereinabove, the learned Magistrate has not examined respondent no. 2-original complainant on oath and has taken cognizance of the said Complaint and has passed an order for inquiry under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It is also required to be noted at this stage that even the learned Magistrate while taking cognizance and passing an order under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has not even considered the substance of the Complaint and/or allegations and averments made in the Complaint and whether the allegations/averments made in the Complaint requires further inquiry and/or further investigation or not. From the impugned order ordering inquiry under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, it appears that the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has passed an order for inquiry under 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the Dy. S.P, Gandhinagar solely on the ground that the allegations made in the Complaint relates to the high ranking Officer. From the order, it appears that nothing has been mentioned by the learned Magistrate that he has considered the averments and allegations made in the Complaint and/or he has considered the substance of the averments and allegations made in the Complaint and has mechanically passed an order for inquiry under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
8. Even on merits also, for the reasons stated hereinabove, the impugned Complaint cannot be sustained and the same deserves to be quashed and set aside. As stated hereinabove, the allegations made in the Complaint against the applicant and one another are;
(a) that respondent no. 2-original complainant has been falsely implicated in the case arising out of the impugned Complaint/FIR, being C.R. No. 1/1995;
(b) that respondent no. 2-original complainant has been falsely chargesheeted for the offences arising out of the aforesaid Complaint/FIR;
(c) that respondent no. 2-original complainant was falsely arrested in connection with the aforesaid FIR/Complaint, being C.R. No. 1/1995 by the applicant-original accused no. 2, the then Investigating Officer and that too when respondent no. 2-original complainant was not named in the FIR, he was arrested by the applicant-original accused no. 2 without prior permission of the State Government/competent authority;
(d) that respondent no. 2-original complainant was wrongly shown as absconding in the chargesheet filed against the other accused persons of the aforesaid FIR;
(e) that respondent no. 2-original complainant is arraigned as an accused at the instance of the applicant-original accused no. 2 as he had a rivalry animosity.
(f) that the applicant-original accused no. 2 and another accused have exceeded their authority and/or misused their power while conducting the investigation of the aforesaid Complaint/FIR, being C.R. No. 1/1995.
9. At this stage, it is required to be noted that so far as respondent no. 2-original complainant is concerned he is an accused in the case arising out of the Complaint, being C.R. No. 1/1995 and he has been chargesheeted and he is facing the trial, which is pending before the concerned Court. Whatsoever is alleged in the Complaint, are all his defenses in the said trial, which is pending against him. Whether respondent no. 2-original complainant has committed any offence for which he is already chargesheeted or not and/or whether he has been falsely implicated in the case or not are all his defenses, which are required to be considered by the concerned trial Court on appreciation of evidence during the trial. It appears that without facing the trial, respondent no. 2-original complainant wants the finding that he has not committed the offence for which he has been chargesheeted and that he has been falsely implicated in the case, which is not permissible. It appears that indirectly respondent no. 2-original complainant, who is facing the trial for the serious offence wants acquittal in the case, which is yet to be tried by the concerned Magistrate/Court and, therefore, it appears that the impugned Complaint is nothing but an abuse of process of law and Court and has been filed with a malafide intention for acquittal of the case pending against him before the competent Court.
10. Now so far as the allegations made in the Complaint that he was falsely arrested with respect to FIR, C.R. No. 1/1995 and that too at the instance of applicant-original accused no. 2 is concerned, it is required to be noted that anticipatory bail application submitted by respondent no. 2-original complainant came to be rejected up to the High Court and thereafter he was arrested and thereafter his regular bail application was rejected by the learned Sessions Court considering the seriousness of the offence alleged against him and he was released on bail by this Court only approximately after 82 to 85 days. Under the circumstances, it cannot be said that while arresting respondent no. 2-original complainant by the applicant-original accused no. 2 he has acted malafide and/or exceeded the authority and/or misused his power.
11. It is also required to be noted at this stage that whatsoever has been done by the applicant-original accused no. 2 has been done while performing his duty as the Investigating Officer and the investigation carried out by him was reported to the Division Bench of this Court time to time by different status reports. In any case, after the investigation has been concluded respondent no. 2-original complainant has been chargesheeted for the offences in connection with the Complaint, being C.R. No. 1/1995 and is facing the trial and in the meantime, after a period of six years of filing the supplementary chargesheet against him, he has filed the impugned Complaint, which is nothing but an abuse of process of law and Court, which deserves to be quashed and set aside under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The case squarely falls within the parameters laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bhajanlal & Ors. (Supra), more particularly paragraph 108, category nos. 3, 5 and 7 of the said decision, which are as under;
"(3) where uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or Complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not discloses the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused;
(5) where the allegations made in the FIR or Complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused;
(7) where a criminal proceedings is manifestly attended with a malafide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge."
12. In view of the above and for the reasons stated hereinabove, the present application succeeds and the impugned criminal proceedings, Criminal Inquiry Case No. 202/2012 respondent no. 2-original complainant pending in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gandhinagar as well as the impugned order passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gandhinagar directing to hold inquiry of the said Complaint under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure are hereby quashed and set aside so far as the applicant-original accused no. 2 is concerned. However, it is made clear that this Court has not expressed anything on merits with respect to the defenses, which might be available to respondent no. 2-original complainant in trial pending against him arising out of C.R. No. 1/1995 and all the defenses, which might be available to respondent no. 2-original complainant, be considered by the concerned Court in accordance with law and on its own merits, without, in any way, being influenced by the present order. Rule is made absolute accordingly.
(M.R. SHAH, J.) siji