Punjab-Haryana High Court
Rajbir Singh vs State Of Haryana And Another on 13 December, 2023
Author: Pankaj Jain
Bench: Pankaj Jain
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:159968
CRM-51711-2023 in/and 1
CRM-M-46444-2021 2023:PHHC:159968
123
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-51711-2023 in/and
CRM-M-46444-2021
Date of decision : 13.12.2023
RAJBIR SINGH ....Petitioner
Versus
STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER ...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ JAIN
Present : Mr. Pankaj Nanhera, Advocate and
Mr. Rahul Gautam, Advocate for the applicant/petitioner.
Mr. Gaurav Bansal, DAG, Haryana.
Mr. Paramvir Singh Doon, Advocate
for the complainant/respondent No.2.
PANKAJ JAIN, J. (ORAL)
CRM-51711-2023 By way of instant application, the applicant/petitioner is seeking preponement of the date of hearing in the main case.
Heard.
No ground is made out to prepone the date of hearing as on 04.12.2023 the matter was adjourned in the presence of counsel for the petitioner, however purely in the interest of justice and keeping in view the averment made in the application that promotion of the petitioner is due to the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police and DPC qua the said 1 of 5 ::: Downloaded on - 15-12-2023 03:39:04 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:159968 CRM-51711-2023 in/and 2 CRM-M-46444-2021 2023:PHHC:159968 promotion is stated to be scheduled for today, the application is allowed.
Main case is preponed to today itself and accordingly taken on board.
CRM-M-46444-2021 Petitioner prays for quashing of FIR No.0090 dated 10.03.2021 registered for the offence punishable under Section 166-A IPC, registered at Police Station Industrial Sector 29, District Panipat and that impugned notice issued under Section 41 Cr.P.C. qua the petitioner along with all proceedings subsequent thereto.
2. Contents of the FIR reads as under :
"xxx I, Preeti D/o Karan Singh, am resident of village Risalu, District Panipat. Myself and my sister Simran had given an application on date 04.03.2021 regarding taking away my mother Roshni and my bother Deepak from home by my brother- in-law (Jija) Rakesh S/o Karanvir, resident of village Furlak District Karnal, at Police Station Sector-29 Panipat handed over to an unknown employee. That no legal action has been taken on the application given by me, legal action be taken against him/her. Sd/-
3. While issuing notice of motion on 25.11.2021, following order was passed :
"It has been argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner inter-alia that it is a case where the petitioner who was working as SHO in Police Station Sector-29, Industrial Area, Panipat and a complaint was received on 4.3.2021 that the mother and brother of the complainant were kidnapped by his brother-in-law and thereafter an FIR was registered on the next day i.e. 5.3.2021. The petitioner was only an SHO and was not 2 of 5 ::: Downloaded on - 15-12-2023 03:39:04 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:159968 CRM-51711-2023 in/and 3 CRM-M-46444-2021 2023:PHHC:159968 appointed as IO even thereafter. The allegations against the petitioner qua Section 166A IPC are that he did not take prompt action in registering of the FIR in accordance with the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Lalita Kumari Vs. Govt. of U.P. and others, 2014(1) SCC (Crl.) 524. He submitted that although the departmental proceedings were conducted against the petitioner and he was awarded punishment of stoppage of three increments but so far as the offence under Section 166A IPC is concerned, the same was not made out since the ingredients of Section 166A IPC were not fulfilled. He submitted that all the clauses a, b and c of Section 166A IPC were not attracted in the present case and, therefore, the lodging of the FIR against the petitioner under Section 166A IPC cannot be sustained and is, therefore, liable to be quashed. He further submitted that as per the FIR although the petitioner was not named but nominated thereafter, a notice has been issued under Section 41 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the same has also been impugned in the present petition.
Notice of motion.
Mr. Naveen Singh Panwar, DAG, Haryana accepts notice and prays for some time to file reply.
Adjourned to 20.1.2022."
4. Today counsel for the petitioner argues that the allegation levelled in the FIR is that an application was moved by the complainant on 4th of March, 2021 regarding kidnapping of her mother Roshni, her brother Deepak by her brother-in-law (jija) Rakesh and no action was taken. The offence alleged in the said application would not fall within the parameters of Section 166A(c) IPC.
3 of 5
::: Downloaded on - 15-12-2023 03:39:04 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:159968
CRM-51711-2023 in/and 4
CRM-M-46444-2021 2023:PHHC:159968
5. In order to appreciate the plea being raised by counsel for the petitioner it will be apt to peruse Section 166A IPC which reads as under :
"166A. Public servant disobeying direction under law.-- Whoever, being a public servant,--
(a) knowingly disobeys any direction of the law which prohibits him from requiring the attendance at any place of any person for the purpose of investigation into an offence or any other matter, or
(b) knowingly disobeys, to the prejudice of any person, any other direction of the law regulating the manner in which he shall conduct such investigation, or
(c) fails to record any information given to him under sub-section (1) of section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), in relation to cognizable offence punishable under section 326A, section 326B, section 354, section 354B, section 370, section 370A, section 376, section 376A, section 376B, section 376C, section 376D, section 376E or section 509, shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six months but which may extend to two years, and shall also be liable to fine."
6. Counsel for the complainant has supported the case of the prosecution.
7. State Counsel though opposes the plea raised by the petitioner but is not in position to dispute the legal plea that in order to constitute offence punishable under Section 166A IPC the original application on the basis of which offence is being alleged to have been committed must disclose offence enumerated under Section 166A(c) IPC.
8. I have heard counsel for the parties and have gone through 4 of 5 ::: Downloaded on - 15-12-2023 03:39:04 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:159968 CRM-51711-2023 in/and 5 CRM-M-46444-2021 2023:PHHC:159968 records of the case.
9. Counsel for the petitioner is right in contending that the allegation levelled in the complaint made by the applicant in the original application does not fall within the offence enumerated under Section 166A
(c) and thus the present FIR cannot sustain. Consequently, the present petition is allowed. FIR No.0090 dated 10.03.2021 registered for the offence punishable under Section 166-A IPC, registered at Police Station Industrial Sector 29, District Panipat and that impugned notice issued under Section 41 Cr.P.C. along with all proceedings subsequent thereto, are hereby quashed qua the petitioner.
December 13, 2023 (Pankaj Jain)
Dpr Judge
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:159968
5 of 5
::: Downloaded on - 15-12-2023 03:39:04 :::