Delhi District Court
Vijay Pal Singh vs State on 18 May, 2012
IN THE COURT OF MS. SAVITA RAO, ADDITIONAL
SESSIONS JUDGE01, NORTH, DELHI
Crl. Rev. No.: 155/2011
CC/FIR no. : 295/01
P.S. : Timarpur
U/s : 218/34 IPC
Case ID No. : 02401R0519742011
IN THE MATTER OF :
Vijay Pal Singh
Inspector Delhi Police
Presently Posted at P.S. Swaroop Nagar
North West Distt. , Delhi
.................Petitioner
Vs.
State
.............Respondent
Date of Institution : 11.11.2011
Date of Arguments : 20.04.2012, 27.4.2012 & 16.5.2012
Date of Order : 18.05.2012
ORDER
1. This is a revision petition filed by the petitioner aggrieved by the orders of Ld. Trial Court dated 27.7.2011 and 23.9.2011 whereby charge was framed against the petitioner u/s 218/34 IPC.
2. The facts relevant for the purpose of disposal of instant Crl. Rev. No.: 155/2011 1/11 revision petition are that a complaint was lodged by one Tarun Kaushik with respect to theft of his vehicle bearing no. HR26K0090 and on the basis of his complaint, FIR no. 89/2000 was registered. During investigation of the said case, DD no. 17A dated 29.11.2000 was lodged at P.S. Timarpur whereby it was informed that the said stolen vehicle had been recovered in Gujarat and the accused had been remanded in judicial custody. Upon the said information, H.C. Iliyas Ahmed, IO of the said case, formally arrested the accused and filed the charge sheet in FIR no. 89/2000 in the court. However Ld. Trial declined to take cognizance against accused Suresh as no recovery was effected from him . In the said charge sheet, it was submitted that the petitioner and Ct. Karambir both of AATS staff had gone to Gujarat in connection with investigation of FIR no. 389/2000, P.S. Preet Vihar where they recovered the TATA Sumo Vehicle from one Mohan Bhai Atma Ram Prajapati. The said vehicle when recovered carried the fake number UP025549. The petitioner alongwith Ct. Karambir prepared the seizure memo u/s 102 Cr.P.C. with respect to the said vehicle which showed that the said vehicle was recovered from the possession of Mohan Bhai Atma Ram Prajapati. They interrogated Mohan Bhai and found him to be innocent buyer who had purchased the said vehicle after paying Rs. 3.5 Lacs. But the documents for the said consideration were not seized by the petitioner and Ct. Karambir. Thereafter H.C. Iliyas Ahmed being the IO of case FIR no. 89/2000, after getting the relevant documents and memos from the Crl. Rev. No.: 155/2011 2/11 petitioner, fabricated the statements of petitioner and Ct. Karambir and twisted the facts and recorded another confessional statement of accused Suresh while noting that the vehicle in question had been recovered from his possession. On the basis of above facts, Ld. Trial court declined to take cognizance against accused Suresh and at the same time, directed the Commissioner of Police and DCP (North) for taking appropriate action against the offenders namely Iliyas Ahmed, Vijay Pal and Karambir for committing the offence of screening the offender. The FIR was accordingly registered upon the said order of Ld. Trial court and the charge sheet was filed against H.C. Illiyas Ahmed u/s 218 IPC, whereas the petitioner herein alongwith Ct. Karambir were kept in Column number 12 for want of evidence. All the above accused persons were summoned by the trial court and after hearing the parties, Ld. Trial court proceeded ahead to frame charge against all the accused persons except accused Usha Sharma, the then SHO who was discharged by Ld. Trial court.
3. It is submitted on behalf of petitioner that Ld. Trial court discarded the submission of petitioner that the documents which had been seized showed that the vehicle in question had been purchased by Mohan Bhai Atma Ram Prajapati as bonafide purchaser . However it was observed by Ld. Trial court that the consideration amount of the said vehicle was Rs. 3,55,000/ which amount had been paid in cash. The verification of the registration number of the said vehicle also revealed Crl. Rev. No.: 155/2011 3/11 the registration number being fake. The other documents/NOC was also stated to be fake and it was accordingly observed that all these documents thereby prima faice raise a grave suspicion against the petitioner and Ct. Karambir who both with dishonest and malafide intention let off the possessor Mohan Bhai Atma Ram and they arrested one another person namely Suresh from whom neither any recovery was effected nor any other evidence was there on record.
4. As stated, the petitioner was posted as Sub Inspector with AATS Staff of East District and while investigating the case FIR no. 389/2000, u/s 379 IPC of P.S. Preet Vihar, the petitioner alongwith H.C. Om Prakash and Ct. Karambir had gone to Gujarat in connection with FIR no. 389/2000, P.S. Preet Vihar. During the raids conducted by the raiding party, they also recovered a TATA Sumo vehicle bearing registration number UP025549 which is the vehicle in question from one Mohan Bhai. The vehicle was found to be stolen in case FIR no. 89/2000 of P.S. Timarpur and recovery of the vehicle was effected vide seizure memo and the vehicle was seized u/s 102 Cr.P.C.. After the recovery of the vehicle, Mohan Bhai Prajapati was interrogated and after detailed interrogation and after having seen all the documents produced by Mohan Bhai Atma Ram and on the information given by him that he had purchased the vehicle from one Ashok Kumar Patel of the same locality, the petitioner alongwith his team interrogated said Ashok Kumar. Statements of Mohan Bhai Atma Ram as well as Ashok Kumar were recorded u/s 161 Cr.P.C.. Crl. Rev. No.: 155/2011 4/11 It was further informed by said Ashok Kumar that the vehicle in question was purchased from one Suresh. On 27.11.2000 Suresh was also interrogated and his disclosure statement was recorded to the effect that he had received a number of vehicles stolen from Delhi and had sold some of them in Ahmedabad, Naroda and in other parts of Gujarat. On the basis of said disclosure statement of Suresh, 12 more vehicles stolen from Delhi were recovered at his instance. After reaching Delhi, information of recovery of the vehicle and arrest of Suresh was transmitted to P.S. Timarpur vide DD no. 17A dated 29.11.2000 and all the relevant papers like seizure memo of the recovered vehicle, statements u/s 161 Cr.P.C. and disclosure statement of Suresh were handed over to H.C. Illiyas Ahmed, IO of the case FIR 89/2000, u/s 379 IPC, P.S. Timarpur. While filing the charge sheet against H.C. Illiyas to whom all the documents pertaining to the seizure of the vehicle were handed over, the petitioner herein alongwith Ct. Karambir were put in Column no. 12 in the FIR u/s 218 IPC for want of any evidence against them.
5. However, while observing that the petitioner alongwith Ct. Karambir with dishonest and malafide intentions let off the possessor of the vehicle namely Mohan Bhai Atma Ram and arrested one another person from whom neither any recovery was effected nor any other evidence was there on record, it seems to have escaped the notice of Ld. Trial court that the petitioner alongwith Ct. Karambir had not gone to Gujarat for investigation of the case pertaining to FIR no. 89/2000 with Crl. Rev. No.: 155/2011 5/11 respect to the theft of vehicle in question but had gone there for investigation of another case i.e. FIR no. 389/2000, P.S. Preet Vihar where they were also able to lay hands upon the vehicle in question, being in custody of Mohan Bhai Atma Ram who informed that he had purchased the vehicle in question from Ashok Kumar who further informed that the vehicle in question had been purchased from one Suresh. The statements of Mohan Bhai Atma Ram as well as Ashok Kumar were recorded by the petitioner alongwith Ct. Karambir and on the disclosure statement of accused Suresh, 12 more vehicles were recovered. It is not the case that merely on the basis of disclosure statement of Suresh pertaining to the vehicle in question, he was arrested. In fact it would not be out of place to mention here that the petitioner had only prepared kalandara u/s 102 Cr.P.C. after having seen the documents produced by Mohan Bhai Atma Ram and had arrested accused Suresh not for the FIR bearing no. 89/2000 but for the 12 stolen vehicles which were found in his possession. It may be the mistake on the part of petitioner herein to let off Mohan Bhai Atma Ram Prajapati relying upon the documents produced by him but it may not be lost sight here that petitioner was not the IO of the case pertaining to FIR no. 89/2000 who was investigating some other matter and after conducting the raid, their team had recovered as many as 46 stolen vehicles out of which 12 vehicles were recovered from the possession of Suresh and one vehicle had been recovered from the possession of Mohan Bhai Atma Ram. The petitioner could have made Crl. Rev. No.: 155/2011 6/11 subsequent inquiry with respect to the verification of the documents found in possession of Mohan Bhai Atma Ram or to collect the proof of payment allegedly made by Mohan Bhai Atma Ram but at the same time, it was not mandatory for him to collect the entire evidence when he was not the IO of the matter pertaining to case FIR no. 89/2000 and was already seized up with investigation of his own case entrusted upon him as well as had been successful in making the recovery of 46 stolen vehicles. I agree with the contention of Ld. Counsel for petitioner that during the raids, all the persons involved in the crime were around 150 to 180 and to arrest all those persons for a staff of 56 persons was not practically possible, yet the petitioner alongwith other police officials did their best and examined the persons to the best of their ability. Once all the documents pertaining to FIR no. 89/2000 including the seizure memo of the vehicle in question as well as statements recorded u/s 161 Cr.P.C. were handed over the concerned IO, it was obligatory upon him to conduct the investigation in appropriate manner and to collect the proof of payments allegedly made by Mohan Bhai Atma Ram and other relevant documents. However subsequent IO seems to have washed off his hands and did not make any independent effort to conduct the fair investigation. So much so that instead of taking the lead from the documents already handed over to him, he chose to record another disclosure statement of accused Suresh which was contrary to the disclosure statement already recorded by petitioner herein. As per disclosure statement recorded by Crl. Rev. No.: 155/2011 7/11 H.C. Illiyas, accused Suresh himself had stolen the vehicles from Delhi and had further sold it , thereby he made the entire case based upon the accusations against accused Suresh which was not found correct as per record.
6. At the cost of repetition, it may be said that accused Suresh was apprehended by the petitioner herein not because of the commission of theft of vehicle in question but based upon the recovery of 12 stolen vehicles at his instance. Ld. Trial court also discarded the submission of the petitioner that the proceedings against them were barred by section 197 Cr.P.C. and observed that no protection can be demanded by the public servant with respect to prosecution for excesses or misuse of authority while placing reliance upon AIR 2006 Supreme Court 336, 2009 Crl. L.J. 1318 and AIR 1970 SC 1661. There cannot be any dispute with respect to the proposition of law as laid down in the abovesaid authorities but it may be seen whether there was any mis use or abuse of power vested in the public servant . For the discussion as made herein above, it cannot be concluded that the petitioner alongwith Ct. Karambir had exceeded or misused or abused the powers vested in them as well as it also cannot be concluded that the alleged inaction against Mohan Bhai Atma Ram was during the discharge of their duties while investigating the case entrusted upon them. There are also no allegations against the petitioner herein and Ct. Karambir that they prepared or framed the record which they knew to be incorrect with intent to cause Crl. Rev. No.: 155/2011 8/11 loss or injury to the public or to any person or with intent thereby to save any person from legal punishment which is the basic requirement of section 218 IPC. No fault can be found with respect to the seizure of the vehicle in question from Mohan Bhai Atma Ram for which the requisite documents were prepared by the petitioner and at the same time, statements u/s 161 Cr.P.C. which were recorded by him are also not alleged to be incorrect nor can be attributed deliberate act on their part to screen the real offender in view of the discussion made herein.
7. It is also pertinent to mention here that the vehicle in question had been seized by the petitioner alongwith Ct. Karambir on 02.11.2000 and all the documents pertaining to case FIR no. 89/2000 with respect to seizure of the vehicle in question which was stolen as per FIR no. 89/2000 had been handed over to H.C. Illiyas on 29.11.2000 and thereafter the role of H.C. Illiyas came into picture. In terms of the charge framed on 23.09.2011, the charge has been framed against the petitioner that in between 29.11.2000 to 7.2.2001 in furtherance of their common intention, conducted the investigation/collected the evidence in a manner which was incorrect with intent to cause or knowing it to be likely that all them thereby cause loss or injury to Suresh and with intent to save or knowing it to be likely that all of them thereby saved Mohan Bhai Atma Ram from Legal Punishment. As per record and as already observed all the documents pertaining to the said case had already been handed over to H.C. Illiyas on 29.11.2011 and petitioner as well as Ct. Karambir were no Crl. Rev. No.: 155/2011 9/11 more in picture after 29.11.2000. The role which had been played by the petitioner alongwith Ct. Karambir also does not talk with respect to causing of any injury to accused Suresh while arresting him since as already observed, he had not been arrested for the offence only pertaining to FIR no. 89/2000 but because of recovery of 12 stolen vehicles having been effected at his instance.
8. The allegations that petitioner herein and Ct. Karambir had acted in connivance with the other accused with common intention to let off Mohan Bhai Atma Ram Prajapati is also not correct as per record since as soon as the raiding party of petitioner and Ct. Karambir came back to Delhi, the documents were handed over to the IO of the case FIR no. 89/2000. Their role came to an end and subsequently the role of H.C. Illiyas started independently therefore it cannot be also concluded there there was any common intention of the petitioner alongwith other accused persons in letting off accused Mohan Bhai Prajapati.
9. Not only the language of charge does not apply to the case of petitioner but also because there being no material on record to show their involvement with respect to the charge framed against them, even the prima facie case is not made out against them for framing of the charge much less to talk about their role after 29.11.2000 when they were not at all involved in the investigation of the FIR no. 89/2000.
10. In view of the discussion made above, the impugned order qua petitioner whereby charge has been framed against the petitioner is set Crl. Rev. No.: 155/2011 10/11 aside and present revision petition filed by the petitioner is allowed. Trial Court Record along with copy of this order be sent back. Revision file be consigned to Record Room.
(SAVITA RAO) Additional Sessions Judge01 (North) Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi Announced in the open court today i.e. on 18.05.2012 Crl. Rev. No.: 155/2011 11/11 As soon as he received the documents i.e. DD no. 17A and all other relevant papers like seizure memo of the recovery, statements u/s 161 Cr.P.C. and disclosure statement of Suresh, it was obligatory upon him to conduct the further investigation in appropriate manner and also to verify the links which had not been established so far. He made the formal arrest of accused Suresh in FIR no. 89/2000, PS. Timarpur and also recorded afresh disclosure statement of Suresh which was contrary to the disclosure statement already recorded by Inspector Vijay Pal and according to this new disclosure statement, accused Suresh himself had stolen the vehicles from Delhi and had further sold it which was never the basis of case of raiding team i.e. led by Inspector Vijay Pal. Based upon this fresh disclosure statement and without trying to verify or establish the left links, the charge sheet was filed before the court which invited the ire of the trial court Crl. Rev. No.: 155/2011 12/11