Gujarat High Court
Sanjiv vs State
Author: M.R. Shah
Bench: M.R. Shah
CR.MA/15438/2011 11/ 11 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION No. 15438 of 2011 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 ? ========================================================= SANJIV RAJENDRABHAI BHATT, IPS - Applicant(s) Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & 1 - Respondent(s) ========================================================= Appearance : MR MIHIR JOSHI WITH MR HRIDAY BUCH for Applicant(s) : 1, MR PK JANI PUBLIC PROSECUTOR WITH MR KL PANDYA ADDL.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for Respondent Nos.1 and 2 ========================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH Date : 02/03/2012 ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Present petition under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been preferred by the petitioner herein - original accused to quash and set aside the impugned complaint being Criminal Case No.12123 of 2011 pending in the court of learned 3rd Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ahmedabad (Rural), filed by the respondent No.2 herein - original complainant - Assistant Commissioner of Police, B-Division, Ahmedabad City - investigating officer of First Information Report lodged against the petitioner with Ghatlodiya Police Station being CR No.I-149 of 2011, for the offences punishable under sections 172 and 177 of the Indian Penal Code and order passed by the learned Magistrate directing to issue summons against the petitioner for the offences punishable under sections 172 and 177 of Indian Penal Code.
2. Facts leading to the present petition in nutshell are as under:-
2.01. That a First Information Report came to be lodged against the petitioner herein at Ghatlodiya Police Station, Ahmedabad being CR No.I-149 of 2011 for the offences punishable under sections 189, 193, 194, 194, 195, 341, 342, 465, 471 and 120B of Indian Penal Code. It appears that the said First Information Report was registered on 22/6/2011. The investigation of the said First Information Report was handed over to the Dy.Commissioner of Police, Zone 1, Ahmedabad, who in turn handed over the investigation to the respondent No.2 herein - Assistant Commissioner of Police, B-Division, Ahmedabad City. It is the case on behalf of the respondent No.2 - original complainant - investigating officer of the aforesaid First Information Report that during the course of the investigation of the aforesaid First Information Report, the petitioner was issued summonses under section 160 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on 12/8/2011, 25/8/2011, 2/9/2011 and 20/9/2011 and despite the service of the said summonses, the petitioner did not appear before the investigating officer. It is fuhrer alleged in the said First Information Report that one another summons under section 160 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was issued and served upon the petitioner and he was directed to remain present before the investigating officer on 30/9/2011, however, he did not remain present and he sought adjournment through his representative one Mr.Yogendra Vaidh, on the ground that he has to appear before the Commission consisting of Hon'ble Mr.Justice Nanavati and Hon'ble Mr.Justice Mehta. It is the case of the complainant that on inquiry it was found that no summons was issued by the said Commission consisting of Hon'ble Mr.Justice Nanavati and Hon'ble Mr.Justice Mehta to the petitioner to remain present before the said Commission on 30/9/2011 and therefore, it is the case on behalf of the complainant that despite the service of the summonses issued and served upon the petitioner under section 160 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, he deliberately did not appear before the investigating officer and as such sought adjournment on 30/9/3011 on the false ground that he has to appear before the Commission consisting of Hon'ble Mr.Justice Nanavati and Hon'ble Mr.Justice Mehta and therefore, the respondent No.2 - original complainant -
investigating officer of the aforesaid First Information Report being CR No.I-149 of 2011 registered with Ghatlodiya Police Station has filed the impugned criminal complaint against the petitioner in the court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ahmedabad (Rural) at Mirzapur, Ahmedabad for the offences punishable under sections 172 and 177 of Indian Penal Code which has been registered as Criminal Case No.12123 of 2011. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said complaint - Criminal Case, the petitioner herein - original accused has preferred the present petition under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
2.02. Mr.Mihir Joshi, learned Senior Advocate appearing with Mr.Hriday Buch, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner has vehemently submitted that as such the petitioner has not committed the offence much less the offences punishable under sections 172 and 177 of the Indian Penal Code, as alleged. It is submitted that even on bear reading of the aforesaid complaint and considering the averments and allegations made in the said complaint as they are, it cannot be said that the petitioner has committed the offences punishable under sections 172 and 177 of the Indian Penal Code, as alleged. It is submitted that admittedly even as per the averments and allegations made in the impugned complaint, summonses were issued upon the petitioner under section 160 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and said summonses were served upon the petitioner and therefore, ingredients of section 172 of the Indian Penal Code are not satisfied at all. It is submitted that section 172 of the Indian Penal Code would be applicable only in a case where it is found that the concerned person has absconded to avoid service of summonses or other proceedings. It is submitted that in the present case, it is not the case on behalf of the complainant - respondent No.2 that the petitioner has absconded to avoid service of summonses or other proceedings. It is submitted that on the contrary even as per the complainant summonses under section 160 of the Code of Criminal Procedure were served upon the petitioner and the same were accepted by the petitioner and he had sought adjournment. Therefore, it is submitted that no case is made out against the petitioner for the offence punishable under section 172 of the Indian Penal Code.
2.03. Mr.Mihir Joshi learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner has further submitted that even no offence under section 177 of the Indian Penal Code is made out against the petitioner.
It is submitted that section 177 of Indian Penal Code is with respect to furnishing false information which a person is legally bound to furnish such information on any subject as sought for i.e. with respect to any offence or incident. It is submitted that as such the petitioner was to appear before the Commission consisting of Hon'ble Mr.Justice Nanavati and Hon'ble Mr.Justice Mehta on 30/9/2011, however, on that day the petitioner came to know that he could not participate in the said proceedings, which was In-camera in nature and therefore, a communication was addressed accordingly. Mr.Mihir Joshi, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner has further submitted that even assuming without admitting that the petitioner has tried to get adjournment on the false pretext or on the false ground, in that case also, it cannot be said that the petitioner has committed offence under section 177 of Indian Penal Code and that a case is made out against the applicant for the offence punishable under section 177 of the Indian Penal Code.
2.04. Mr.Mihir Joshi learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner has therefore submitted that as such the impugned complaint does not disclose commission of any offence by the petitioner, more particularly for the offences punishable under sections 172 and 177 of the Indian Penal Code and no case is made out for the offences punishable under sections 172 and 177 of the Indian Penal Code. It is, therefore, requested to quash and set aside the impugned complaint as the same is nothing but abuse of process of law and court and unnecessary harassment to the petitioner.
By making above submissions, Mr.Mihir Joshi, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner has requested to allow the present petition.
3.00. Present petition is opposed by Mr.P.K. Jani, learned Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State as well as investigating officer - respondent No.2. It is submitted that despite the service of summons issued upon the petitioner under section 160 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioner did not appear before the investigating officer and did not cooperate the investigating officer with respect to the First Information Report filed against him being CR No.I-149 of 2011 and therefore, it can be said that the petitioner has committed offences punishable under section 172 of Indian Penal Code.
3.01.
Mr.P.K. Jani, learned Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondents has further submitted that even a clear case is made out against the petitioner for the offence punishable under section 177 of the Indian Penal Code also, as though the petitioner was not to appear before the Commission consisting of Hon'ble Mr.Justice Nanavati and Hon'ble Mr.Justice Mehta on 30/9/3011, he did not appear before the investigating officer and avoided to appear before the investigating officer on 30/9/3011 on the false ground / pretext that he has to appear before the Commission consisting of Hon'ble Mr.Justice Nanavati and Hon'ble Mr.Justice Mehta, knowing full well that he was not to appear before the Commission consisting of Hon'ble Mr.Justice Nanavati and Hon'ble Mr.Justice Mehta and thereby furnished false information and therefore, a clear case is made out against the applicant for the offence under section 177 of Indian Penal Code also.
3.01.
Mr.P.K. Jani, learned Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondents has further submitted that considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, when the learned Magistrate has directed to issue summonses upon the petitioner for the offences punishable under section 172 and 177 of Indian Penal Code, the same is not required to be interfered with by this Court in exercise of powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
By making above submissions, Mr.P.K. Jani, learned Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondents has requested to dismiss the present petition.
4.00. Heard Mr.Mihir Joshi, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr.P.K. Jani, learned Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondents.
5.00. At the outset, it is required to be noted that the impugned complaint has been lodged against the petitioner for the offences punishable under sections 172 and 177 of Indian Penal Code alleging inter-alia that though summonses under section 160 of the Code of Criminal Procedure were issued upon the applicant, he did not appear before the investigating officer and he did not cooperate the investigating officer and also alleging inter-alia that when he was served with the summons under section 160 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on 20/9/2011 informing him to remain present before the investigating officer on 30/9/2011, he sent a communication through his representative and sought adjournment on the false ground that on 30/9/2011 he is to appear before the Commission consisting of Hon'ble Mr.Justice Nanavati and Hon'ble Mr.Justice Mehta. It is alleged that on inquiry it has been found that he was not to appear before the said Commission on 30/9/2011, as no such summons was issued upon the petitioner by the said Commission directing the petitioner to remain present before the said Commission on 30/9/3011. Except the above, no other allegations have been made against the petitioner.
5.01. Now, so far as the section 172 of Indian Penal Code is concerned, it can be applicable only in a case where any person inclusive of an accused has absconded in order to avoid any service of notice or other proceedings from any public servant legally competent to issue such summons. Therefore, only in a case where it is found that such person has absconded to avoid service of summons or other proceedings, then and then only it can be said that such person has committed offence under section 172 of the Indian Penal Code. In the present case, admittedly and even according to the complainant - respondent No.2, summons issued upon the petitioners under section 160 of the Code of Criminal Procedure were served upon the petitioner and the same were accepted by the petitioner and it is not the case of the complainant - respondent No.2 that the petitioner has avoided the service of notice and has not accepted the summonses and/or that he was absconding to avoid service of summons or other proceedings. The facts are otherwise. In fact, the summons are served upon the petitioner and the summonses were accepted by the petitioner. It might be that the petitioner had sought adjournment for appearing before the concerned investigating officer after having served with the summonses. However, by that itself it cannot be said that the petitioner has committed offence under section 172 of the Indian Penal Code. To abscond to avoid of service or to avoid service of summons or other proceedings is different than that of asking adjournment after having served with the summonses. Under the circumstances, on bear reading of the allegations made in the complaint, it cannot be said that even a prima facie case is made out against the petitioner for the offence under section 172 of Indian Penal Code as the ingredients for the offence under section 172 of the Indian Penal Code are lacking.
5.02. Now so far as the allegations against the petitioner for the offence under section 177 of the Indian Penal Code are concerned, it appears that the allegations against the petitioner for the offence under section 177 of Indian Penal Code are that the petitioner was served with the summons under section 160 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on 20/9/2011 directing him to remain present before the investigating officer on 30/9/2011, however, he sent a representation through his representative and sought adjournment on the false ground and pretext that he is required to appear before the Commission consisting of Hon'ble Mr.Justice Nanavati and Hon'ble Mr.Justice Mehta. It is alleged in the complainant that on inquiry it has been found that he was not to appear before the Commission consisting of Hon'ble Mr.Justice Nanavati and Hon'ble Mr.Justice Mehta as no summons was issued by the said Commission upon the petitioner. On bear reading of section 177 of the Indian Penal Code read with illustration (a), the same would be applicable only in a case where a person who was legally bound to furnish information on any subject to any public public servant, as such, furnishes, as true, information on the subject which he knows or has reason to believe to be false. It is not the case on behalf of the complainant - respondent No.2 that the petitioner has furnished false information on the subject i.e. with respect to the First Information Report being CR No.I-149 of 2011 registered with Ghatlodiya Police Station, as true, which is found to be false. Therefore, even no case is made out for the offence under section 177 of Indian Penal Code 5.03. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and even considering the averments and allegations made in the impugned complaint as it is, it cannot be said that a prima facie case is made out against the petitioner for the offences punishable under sections 172 and 177 of Indian Penal Code for which the learned Magistrate has directed to issue summons against the petitioner.
5.04. Moreover, it is required to be noted at this stage that it is the specific case on behalf of the petitioner that he was required to appear before the Commission consisting of Hon'ble Mr.Justice Nanavati and Hon'ble Mr.Justice Mehta on 30/9/2011, however, he got information that he is not required to appear and thereafter he did not appear before the Commission.
5.05. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and even considering the averments and allegations made in the impugned complaint and accepting the same as they are, no case is made out against the petitioner for the offences punishable under sections 172 and 177 of Indian Penal Code, as alleged, for which the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate has issued the summons against the petitioner. Under the circumstances, to continue the impugned criminal proceedings against the petitioner would be abuse of process of law and court and unnecessary harassment to the petitioner and therefore, this Court is of the opinion that this is a fit case to exercise powers under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and to quash and set aside the impugned criminal proceedings.
6. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, present petition succeeds. The impugned complaint being Criminal Case No.12123 of 2011 pending in the court of learned 3rd Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ahmedabad Rural, Ahmedabad, filed by the respondent No.2 herein original complainant and the impugned order dtd.21/10/2011 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ahmedabad (Rural), directing to issue summons against the petitioner for the offences punishable under sections 172 and 177 of the Indian Penal Code, are hereby quashed and set aside. Rule is made absolute accordingly.
rafik [M.R. SHAH, J.]