Punjab-Haryana High Court
Radhey Sham Alias Radhey And Another vs State Of Punjab And Others on 22 July, 2010
Author: S.S. Saron
Bench: S.S. Saron
In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh
......
Criminal Misc. No.M-34287 of 2009
.....
Date of decision:22.7.2010
Radhey Sham alias Radhey and another
.....Petitioners
v.
State of Punjab and others
.....Respondents
....
Present: Mr. L.M. Gulati, Advocate for the petitioners.
.....
S.S. Saron, J.
This petition has been filed seeking quashing of the calendar of events (calendra) dated 19.9.2009 (Annexure-P.3) under Section 182 IPC recorded at Police Station D-Division, Amritsar, District Amritsar.
After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner and perusing the record, it may be noticed that the calender of events (Annexure-P.3) mentions that one Smt. Shakuntla Devi wife of Bansi Lal submitted a complaint dated 30.6.2009 to the Inspector General of Police, Border Range, Amritsar against Radhey Sham (petitioner No.1), Ram Pal (petitioner No.2), Pawan Kumar (non-petitioner) sons of Radhey Sham, Sunil alias Laddi (non-petitioner), Vijay Kumar (non-petitioner). It was alleged by the complainant Smt. Shakuntla that on 24.4.2009 a dispute had occurred with regard to cable wires which are used by the parties for viewing their TV programmes. The accused persons did not want to remove their cable wire for which a request was made by Smt. Shakuntla Devi (complainant) that the petitioners must ask their cable operator to give them Cr. Misc. No.M-34287 of 2009 [2] separate cable. The accused persons after some time came to the shop of the complainant and started breaking the locks. When the complainant tried to stop them she was given a push; besides being abused. The accused broke open the lock and threw her goods from the shop and also took Rs.1500/- from the cash box. When a hue and cry was raised then the President of the Mohalla Sudhar Committee Davinder Singh came and said that this was a small dispute and could be solved by sitting together. The accused even slapped the President and also spoke against his status. After hearing all this, all the Mohalla residents went to Durgiana Mandir Police Chowki and submitted a written complaint which was thumb marked and signed by all the residents of the Mohalla. The Police Constable of the Chowki asked the complainant to effect a compromise, so they came back. Thereafter, the opposite party got false dockets prepared by showing self-inflicted injuries. The next morning when the complainant Shakuntla Devi and others went to the Police Chowki, the accused did not turn up at the Chowki. The Chowki employees asked the complainant to come the next day. In this way they used to take rounds of the Police Chowki everyday but no action was taken. Thereafter, the complainant received summons from the Police Station Kachehari Gate and whenever the accused were summoned by the Police, then Radhey Sham (petitioner No.1) used to say, whatever would be done would be done by their Comrade and they had left everything on the Comrade. The complainant requested that legal action be taken on the complaint and inquiry be got conducted as they were creating scenes in the street. Sub Inspector Parneet Singh, SHO, Police Station D-Division, Amritsar (respondent No.4) recorded that the inquiry of the said case was Cr. Misc. No.M-34287 of 2009 [3] earlier done by Sub Inspector Balbir Singh, SHO, D-Division, Amritsar on the directions of ASP City-II. Thereafter, one complaint was received from Ram Pal (petitioner No.2) against the Chowki In-charge SI Tarsem Singh in which he alleged the commission of offence under Section 325 IPC which the Chowki In-charge wanted to get forcibly compromised. In this regard Sub Inspector Balbir Singh, SHO had himself inquired into the matter by reaching the spot. In the inquiry it was found that applicant-Ram Pal (petitioner No.2) and his family members had some dispute on 24.4.2009 with Shakuntla Devi. Both the parties had approached the Durgiana Mandir Police Chowki during the night itself. The parties kept on abusing each other; besides, levelling allegations against each other. The respectables of the Mohalla had stated that they would compromise in the Mohalla itself and both the parties had gone back. None of the parties had requested for conducting medical examination because there was no apparent injury at that time. Then on the same night i.e. 25.4.2009, Radhey Sham (petitioner No.1) went to Police Station, D-Division and got dockets of injuries to N/PRO Sulakhan Singh. He got himself examined from Medical Civil Hospital in which tooth has been shown to be broken. The MLR dated 25.4.2009 of Radhey Sham (petitioner No.1) was brought and produced before SI Tarsem Kumar, Chowki In-charge, Durgiana Mandi. On this Sub Inspector Tarsem Kumar conducted an inquiry and found the injury to be suspicious and he recorded DDR No.20 dated 7.5.2009. In this regard, an inquiry was also conducted by Sub Inspector Balbir Singh, SHO by going to the spot. In the inquiry, it was found that there was a dispute regarding the cable wires which was only a verbal fight. No tooth had broken and the Cr. Misc. No.M-34287 of 2009 [4] MLR was false. During inquiry Radhey Sham (petitioner No.1) demanded Rs.20,000/- for his broken tooth. Radhey Sham for getting a false report, it was observed, had paid money in the hospital through Vijay Kumar Comrade and Sub Inspector Balbir Singh, SHO had demanded action for a wrong MLR. The allegations levelled by Radhey Sham (petitioner No.1) and Ram Pal (petitioner No.2) were found to be false and there was no truth in the said allegations. It was found that Ram Pal (petitioner No.2) had given false complaint by submitting a false medical report so necessary action was liable to be taken against him. The recommendations of Sub Inspector Balbir Singh, SHO were accepted vide letter dated 1.9.2009 for taking action against Ram Pal (petitioner No.2) and Radhey Sham (petitioner No.1) for submitting a false medical report. Accordingly, the calendar of events (calendra) (Annexure-P.3) under Section 182 IPC was being lodged and was being submitted in the Court.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that no false medical report was submitted to the Police and Radhey Sham (petitioner No.1) had indeed suffered the injury as attributed to him. Besides, it is submitted that on the basis of the information given by the petitioner, no FIR was registered. Therefore, for want of registration of FIR the petitioners are not liable to be proceeded against in terms of Section 182 IPC. In support of his contentions, learned counsel cites Malkiat Singh v. State of Haryana, 1999 (2) RCR (Cr.) 10 (P&H).
I have given my thoughtful consideration to the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioners, however, find no merit in the same. The contentions that a false medical report was not submitted is a matter of evidence which can be appreciated by the learned Court before whom the Cr. Misc. No.M-34287 of 2009 [5] calendar of events/calendra (Annexure-P.3) is pending and this Court is not to embark upon a parallel inquiry to ascertain whether the allegations as made in the complaint are false or otherwise.
As regards the contention that the complaint under Section 182 IPC is not maintainable as no FIR has been registered, the provisions of Section 182 IPC may be noticed, which read as under:-
"182. False information, with intent to cause public servant to use his lawful power to the injury of another person.- Whoever gives to any public servant any information which he knows or believes to be false, intending thereby to cause, or knowing it to be likely that he will thereby cause, such public servant -
(a) to do or omit anything which such public servant ought not to do or omit if the true state of facts respecting which such information is given were known by him, or
(b) to use the lawful power of such public servant to the injury or annoyance of any person, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both."
A perusal of the above shows that whoever gives to any public servant any information which he knows or believes to be false, intending thereby to cause, or knowing it to be likely that he will thereby cause, such public servant to do or omit anything which such public servant ought not to do or omit if the true state of facts respecting which such information is given were known by him, or to use the lawful power of such public servant Cr. Misc. No.M-34287 of 2009 [6] to the injury or annoyance of any person is liable for punishment with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both. It is not the requirement of the said provision that on an information which is given to a public servant a FIR is to be registered in terms of Section 154 Cr.P.C. It is only the information on the basis of which the public servant does or omits to do some act which the public servant ought not to do or omits to do if the true state of facts respecting which such information was given were known to him. In any case, it may be noticed that on the basis of the information given by the petitioners, DDR No.20 dated 7.5.2009 was recorded at the Police Chowki Durgiana Mandir. On the basis of the said DDR some action was taken which was not liable to be taken had the true state of facts come to the notice of the concerned public servant.
In the case of Malkiat Singh v. State of Haryana (supra), the proceedings under Section 182 IPC were quashed primarily because the complaint had not been filed by a competent person. A contention was raised in the said case that no FIR was registered by the Police under Section 154 Cr.P.C. on the complaint sent by Malkiat Singh petitioner in the said case to the Superintendent of Police, Kurukshetra. It was submitted that investigation made by the Police Officer was, therefore, not in accordance with the procedure laid down by the Cr.P.C. On consideration of the matter it was found that the procedure adopted by the Police Officer in the matter of investigation was in contravention of the provisions of the Cr.P.C. It was observed that if a Police Officer intended to make any investigation into the offences mentioned in the complaint, it was necessary Cr. Misc. No.M-34287 of 2009 [7] to register a FIR and in respect of the allegations in the complaint if the offences alleged are cognizable, Section 154 Cr.P.C. requires that a report shall be registered by the Police Officer in relation to any cognizable offence. There is no dispute to the said proposition. However, it was not laid down therein that for initiating process under Section 182 IPC, registration of FIR is a sine qua non. The complaint was quashed primarily because it had not been filed by Superintendent of Police but by the SHO, though the complaint had been sent by the complainant therein to the Superintendent of Police. Besides, it was observed that the investigation made by the Police Officer and the conclusions drawn by him were found to be without jurisdiction and contrary to law. Therefore, in addition to the complaint under Section 182 IPC not being by a competent person it was observed that the investigation was without jurisdiction and contrary to law and not that a complaint under Section 182 IPC would be maintainable only if a FIR had been registered. Therefore, the ratio of the judgment in Malkiat Singh's case (supra) is inapplicable to the facts of the present case.
For the foregoing reasons, there is no merit in this petition and the same is accordingly dismissed.
July 22, 2010. (S.S. Saron) Judge *hsp*