Punjab-Haryana High Court
Surender Rathee vs State Of Haryana on 25 January, 2024
Author: Anoop Chitkara
Bench: Anoop Chitkara
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:012057
CRM-M-3924-2024 2024:PHHC:012057
105 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-3924-2024
Date of Decision: 25.01.2024
Surender Rathee ...Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana ...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA
Present: Mr. Shivansh Malik, Advocate and
Mr. Ashutosh Verma, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Vikrant Pamboo, Sr. DAG, Haryana.
****
ANOOP CHITKARA, J.
FIR No. Dated Police Station Sections 230 18.05.2019 Sampla, 384 IPC and 7, 8, 9, 13 of PC Act, 1988 District Rohtak (Section 7-A of PC Act added during investigation)
1. Seeking quashing of the above captioned FIR and the report filed under Section 173 Cr.P.C., the petitioner, who claimed to be a transporter and was allegedly working as a tout of Regional Transport Authority officials, and would collect the extortion/bribe amount, and further, an extortion amount of Rs.1 lac was recovered from his pocket, has come up before this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
2. I have heard counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the petition for the purposes to satisfy that whether the present petition is worth issuing notice or not.
3. According to the prosecution, ASI Satish received secret information that petitioner- Surender Rathee and one Ravinder @ Kala are working as touts of the officials of the Regional Transport Authority. Through them, RTI officials are collecting bribe money/extortion amount to the extent of Rs.8000/- per vehicle, and once the amount is paid, they let the overloaded trucks carrying dust, sand, and other construction materials ply on the roads and exempt the vehicles from challan.
4. Upon receipt of secret information, ASI constituted a raiding team, reached a place known as Sampla, and noticed two cars parked there. They caught the petitioner from one car and an another accused from the other car. The Investigator recovered a sum of 1 1 of 3 ::: Downloaded on - 31-01-2024 22:18:55 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:012057 CRM-M-3924-2024 2024:PHHC:012057 Rs.1 lac from the petitioner's pocket. The recovered money was prima facie found to be the bribe money/extortion amount they collected in collusion with RTI officials, accordingly, an FIR was registered. Subsequently, the concerned public servants, namely Manish Madan and Amit, were also arraigned as accused. After completing the investigation, the Officer incharge of the police station, filed report under Section 173(2) CrPC under Section 384 IPC, i.e., extortion, and under Sections 7, 8, 9, and 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 against the petitioner and co-accused.
5. Counsel for the petitioner seeks to quash FIR, firstly on the ground that investigation under the PC Act can only be conducted by an officer above the rank of DySP, and consequently, the present search and seizure by ASI are violative of Section 17 of the PC Act. The answer to this legal submission lies in the fact that the offense for which the police report has been filed under Section 173 CrPC is not only under the PC Act but also under Section 384 IPC, wherein any officer above the rank of Head Constable is empowered to investigate. A perusal of the police report filed under Section 173 CrPC, which is annexed with the petition as Annexure P-12, clearly mentions that after the initial investigation, the DySP had taken charge of the same, and on 17.05.2019, he started conducting an investigation. Even after that, the investigation conducted not only led to the recovery of incriminating articles from the public servants but also found the involvement of the present petitioner. Be that as it may, even if DySP did not conduct the initial search, it would not vitiate the trial or would only be an irregularity. After initial investigation the concerned Investigating Officer handed over the investigation to the DySP. The question raised by the petitioner can be answered by the investigator or DySP at appropriate stage i.e. at the stage of their cross-examination and petitioner has opportunity to put this question to them at appropriate stage. At this stage, to pass order qua the prayer of petitioner without even hearing them would be contrary to basic tenets of criminal jurisprudence that no person should be condemned unheard; as such, the petitioner fails to make a case for quashing this aspect.
6. The next ground for quashing is that the FIR was registered in violation of the judgment of the Constitutional Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Lalita Kumari vs Government of U.P., 2014(1) SCC (Crl.) 524. Even this argument is contrary to the facts. A perusal of Annexure P-12 points out that only after recovery of amount, FIR was registered and the recovery substantiate the investigation. It is not that the inquiry must continue for days together to register FIR or make it an investigation. Even a limited-time application of mind, would fulfil the requirements of pre-inquiry prior to the FIR, and the same has been done in the present case by the investigator and further strengthened that point by handing over the investigation to the DySP.
2 2 of 3 ::: Downloaded on - 31-01-2024 22:18:56 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:012057 CRM-M-3924-2024 2024:PHHC:012057
7. In a nutshell, the main grievance of the petitioner is that at the time of receiving the secret information, the concerned ASI should have informed his superior officers, and everything should have been conducted only by an officer above the rank of DySP. In this case, recovery of extortion amounts/bribe money not only constituted an offense under the P.C. Act but also under Section 384 IPC, for which police have already launched prosecution. Furthermore, the petitioner is directly involved with extortion as a main accused and not a principal accused under the P.C. Act. After the initial recovery, the Investigator produced some of the accused before the concerned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, where their statements under Section 164 Cr.P.C. were recorded. Such statements have been annexed with the petition as Annexure P-7 to P-11. The statements were recorded on 29.05.2019; before that, the DySP had already started an investigation. The statements recorded under Section 164 CrPC, highlight illegal extortion from the construction material suppliers. One Pardeep explicitly mentioned the payment of Rs.10,000/- per vehicle as an extortion amount.Similarly, one Jitender mentioned an amount of Rs.20,000/- and when he refused to pay, they challenged him for Rs.55,000/-. One Dharmender Singh said they had taken Rs.8000/- per month from them as entry, and they were compelled to pay the same. A perusal of the report under Section 173 CrPC clearly shows petitioner's involvement and it is not a case for quashing of FIR.
8. Given above, it is not a case to disturb the criminal proceedings at the initial stage and it is not a case worth issuing notice to the State Government.
9. It is clarified that the observations made hereinabove shall not be construed to be an expression of opinion on the merit of case or at the time of either framing of charges or during trial.
Petition dismissed. All pending applications, if any, also stand disposed.
(ANOOP CHITKARA)
JUDGE
25.01.2024
Jyoti Sharma/anju rani
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes
Whether reportable: NO.
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:012057
3
3 of 3
::: Downloaded on - 31-01-2024 22:18:56 :::