Delhi High Court
Gian Chand Kaushal vs M.C. Joshi And Ors. on 10 July, 1995
Equivalent citations: 1995IIIAD(DELHI)967, 60(1995)DLT546
Author: M.S.A. Siddiqui
Bench: M.S.A. Siddiqui
JUDGMENT M.S.A. Siddiqui, J.
(1) This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of india seeking relief for the issue of the Writ of Mandamus directing registration of F.I.R. against the respondent No. I, and payment of Rs. 50,000.00 by way of compensation consequent upon the commission of offences under Sections 323/342/506/348/341 Indian Penal Code . by the respondent No. 1.
(2) It is beyond the pale of controversy that on 25th February, 1992, a case R.C.6(A) 92 was registered at A.C.B. branch of C.B.I, under Sections 120B/420/ 467/468/471 Indian Penal Code . and under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(l)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act against the petitioner's son-in-law, Shri Madhukar, the then Joint Director (Housing), D.D.A., Delhi; that investigation of the case was entrusted to the respondent No. 1, that on 13th April, 1994, the petitioner attended the office of the respondent No. 1 in response to a notice under Section 160 Cr.P.C. served on him and that on that day the petitioner's specimen writings were taken by the respondent No. 1.
(3) According to the petitioner, on 13th April, 1994 the respondent No. 1 tortured him to extort a confession from him and forcibly obtained his specimen writings. On the same day, the petitioner made a complaint to the D.C.P. for registration of a case against the respondent No. I but no action was taken on his report.
(4) Respondents denied the petitioner's case and alleged that during investigation of the case, evidence also surfaced against the petitioner and his son Shri Devender Kaushal and it was found that the petitioner Along with Shri Madhukar (son-in-law), Shri Devender Kaushal (son) and Shri S.C. Jain (U.D.C.) and some others hatched up a criminal conspiracy for illegally restoring registration of allotment of D.D.A. flats to certain allottees whose allotments of flats had been cancelled for non-payment of dues and in furtherance of the said conspiracy, Shri Madhukar and Shri Jain, by corrupt or illegal means, restored registration of flats to certain allottees and subsequently got those flats sold to them.
(5) Learned Counsel for the respondent No. 1 submitted that since the petitioner, his son-in-law, and son are deeply involved in the said criminal case, he has filed the present petition to thwart the investigation of the case. He further submitted that the petitioner's action in filing a false complaint against the respondent No. 1, who is investigating the case, is smeared with bad faith. Learned Counsel has also invited our attention to the affidavit filed by Shri Sheojee Tewary, S.H.O., Police Station, Lodhi Colony, who swears that the complaint made by the petitioner about the alleged incident was duly enquired into by Sub inspector Banwari and the same was found to be false. Though the matter has been argued at great length yet to our mind, the case appears to rest in a fairly short compass.
(6) In our opinion, the legal position, is well settled. The legal position appears to be that if the cognizable offence is disclosed, registration and investigation into the offence must necessarily follow in the interest of justice. If, however, no cognizable offence is disclosed, registration of offence or investigation can't be permitted as any investigation, in the absence of any offence being disclosed, will result in unnecessary harassment to a party, whose liberty may be put to jeopardy for nothing. The liberty of any individual is sacred and sacrosanct and the Court zealously guards it and protect it. We may also add here that the judicial process should not be used as an instrument for oppression or needless harassment to a party. Whether an offence has been disclosed or not must necessarily depend on facts and circumstances of each particular case. In considering whether an offence has been disclosed or not, the Court has mainly to take into consideration the complaint or the F.I.R. and the Court in appropriate cases may take into consideration the relevant facts and circumstances of the case.
(7) Learned Counsel for the petitioner has attempted to impress us as to how the petitioner was tortured by the respondent No. I to extort a confession from him and coerced to give his specimen signatures. In his rejoinder, the petitioner has seriously disputed the fact that his signatures were obtained in the presence of Panch witnesses, namely, Rajan Narula and Gulshan Marwa. According to the petitioner, the said Panch witnesses are fictitious persons. The petitioner may wish to raise these issues before the Trial Court as his defense in the criminal proceedings that may be instituted against him. There are some serious allegations made by the parties against each other and some of them were repeated with vehemence at the hearing before us. We do not propose to examine them on merits save and except saying that we could refrain from making even an implied observation on any facts involved in the dispute.
(8) The petitioner has also claimed Rs. 50,000.00 by way of damages for the alleged tortuous acts of the respondent No. I. This relief may be obtained in a properly constituted suit and not in a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India (R.M. Tiwari v. Col. Aditya Singh & Ors., .
(9) Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, we are not inclined to interfere in the matter in exercise of our extra-ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Hence, the petition is dismissed.