Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Rajeev Rathore vs State Of Rajasthan And Anr. on 30 November, 1999
Equivalent citations: 2000(2)WLC63, 2000(2)WLN23
JUDGMENT M.A.A. Khan, J.
1. These four petitions under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (the Cr. P.C.) by Rajiv Rathore, petitioner, seek the cancellation and quashing of the relevant First Information Reports registered at the same or different Police Stations of Jaipur City, against him and some others. As per desire and consent of the learned Counsel for the parties these were heard together and are now disposed of by this combined order. The main order shall be placed on the record of S.B. Cr. Misc. Petition No. 602 of 1999 and a copy thereof on the records of each of the remaining petitions.
2. The relevant facts, in chronological order in accordance with the sequence of events and the day, time and place of the registration of the various FIRs at the same and other police stations, are these:
3. On April 22, 1999 at 2.05 p.m. one Nathu Ram reported to the Station House Officer (SHO) Police Station Vidhan Sabha, Jaipur that on 20.4.1999 two unknown persons had taken his brother, Kalu Ram, with them in a white Maruti Zen Car for taking the measurements of certain 'Chokhats'; that on 21.4.1999 Kalu Ram informed the members of his family on telephone that he would return to the house at about 1.30 p.m.; that on that very day at about 11.00 p.m. he again informed the family that he would reach the house at about 10.00 a.m. in the next morning; that since Kalu Ram did not reach the house by that time the informant got worried and suspicious about his brother and reported the matter to the police. In the report it was also mentioned that since his brother was in litigation with his land-lords over the possession of the shop and in the past some persons, representing themselves to be the men of Sh. Shyam Pratap Singh Rathor, D.G. Police used to approach him for vacation of the shop, he suspected that Arun Sogani, Neeraj Sogani, Bhartesh Sogani, Sanjiv Meena, Hari Ram Yadav, Ganpat Sen and some others had abducted his brother. Crime No. 81/99 under Section 365 IPC was registered at Police Station Vidhan Sabha on the basis of this report and investigation was commenced.
4. The investigating officer was still busy in collecting information regarding the telephone wherefrom telephonic messages were received from time to time at the house of Kalu Ram that at 4.00 p.m. he received a wireless message from his police station that Kalu Ram had reached his house. He, therefore, contacted Kalu Ram and examined him under Section 161 Cr. P.C. On being so examined Kalu Ram stated that he and several other persons had taken on rent a piece of land admeasuring 2500 sq. yds. on Tonk Road from Bhartesh Chand Sogani some times in 1962 and constructed shops thereupon and paying rents thereof to the said land lord; that since the tenanted property recorded substantial increase in its price over the years the said landlord started pressing them for vacating the premises and on the tenants, including himself, declining to oblige him the land lord commenced civil litigation by filing suits for eviction against them; that in the year 1998 he came to know that the Sogani had sold the disputed property to Rajiv Rathore, petitioner; that the petitioner through his men began to exercise undue influence upon him and other tenants to get their shops vacated; that on 20.4.1999 two persons took him in a Maruti Zen Car to a factory premises in Sanganer where some other persons joined them and they all. seven in number, started pressurising and beating him with fists and kicks in order to make him agree to vacate the shop; that at about 11.00 p.m. he was taken in a Jeep to another place on Mohana Road near Sanganer where four other persons joined them; that at about 4.00 a.m. in the morning he was taken to room No. 212 of a hotel where he was detained till 11.00 p.m. In the night and was again taken back to the same place at Mahana Road where he was beaten and threatened with dire consequences; that at about 3.00 a.m. a person, reported to have reached from Delhi, came there and he (Kalu Ram) was presented before him; that the said man gave him a beating and threatening and then left that place; that thereafter he was again taken to the same hotel and confined in Room No. 212 thereof; that at about 10.00 or 11.00 a.m. in the morning some persons came to him and forcefully obtained his signatures on 3-4 blank stamp papers; that at about 12.00 O'clock he was made to talk to a man on telephone who threatened him and asked him to vacate the shop; that he was not the same man who was stated to have arrived at from Delhi and had given him beating in the earlier night; that thereafter his moustaches were cut and his face was hidden under a cloth and then a person came to him who asked him to vacate the shop against a payment of more than five lacs and also to advise other tenants to vacate their shops; that he was a young man who had so threatened him and offered money; that the said young man asked him as to whether he knew as to who had purchased the shops and on his telling him that as per his knowledge the shops were purchased by Sh. Shyam Pratap Singh Rathore, the said fellow refuted that fact and told him that he was a 'Miyan' (Muslim) and was asking his men to release him and further assured him that his men would no longer harass and harm him and he might carry on his business; that thereafter some men took him in a Jeep and left him near Gopalpura Railway Phatak with an advice to him to take back the report and also to persuade the other businessmen in Lalkothi area not to proceed on strikes etc. in the matter.
5. On further investigation the investigating officer came to know that the Maruti Zen Car, used in abducting Kaloo Ram and the farm house, located at Mohana Road, belonged to Munna co-accused and the hotel called "Chaupal" in room No. 212 of which Kalu Ram was alleged to have been wrongfully detained and confined, was owned and run by one Jitendra Choudhary. It was also known by him that Raj Kumar Constable, posted as personal guard to Sh: Shyam Pratap Singh Rathore. D.G., and Man Singh Thanedar had visited 'Chaupal' and had got a room reserved therein for the stay of some guests represented to be of the petitioner. It was also known by him that the Jeep which was used in bringing Kalu Ram back to the Chaupal Hotel, was owned by Gulla Ram Jat.
6. On the basis of the information gathered by him in the above manner, the Investigating Officer formed the opinion on 24.4.1999 that the petitioner appeared to be concerned with the abduction of Kalu Ram as he (the petitioner) was alleged to be the prospective purchaser of the property in question. Being of such opinion he required the petitioner to appear before him at the police station for interrogation. The petitioner appeared before him on that very day at 10.00 p.m. After interrogating him the investigating officer suspected that he might have contacted Munna on his Mobile telephone and might have made payment of some money from his Bank Accounts to Bhartesh Chand Sogani. He, therefore, arrested the petitioner at 11.00 p.m. on 24.4.1999. On 25.4.1999 the petitioner was produced before a Magistrate who ordered that the petitioner be kept in police custody and be produced on 26.4.1999 before the concerned Magistrate. The concerned Magistrate remanded the petitioner to police custody upto 28.4.1999. In the course of further interrogation the petitioner denied to have purchased the property or agreed to purchase the same from Bhartesh Chandra Sogani. He told the Investigating Officer that on 19.4.1999 he had left for Delhi, stayed for the night at Behror Midway and then in the RSEB Rest House in Lajpat Nagar, Delhi and returned to Jaipur in the morning of 22.4.1999.
7. On 27.4,1999 the Investigating Officer formed the opinion that it was a case of criminal conspiracy and accordingly added the charge under Section 120B IPC and made further investigation in that direction. Proceeding on that line he arrested Gulla Ram Jat on 27.4.1999 at 8.30 p.m., Bhairoo Ram Yadava on 29.4.1999. The petitioner, Gulla Ram Jat and Bhairoo Ram were,, however, released on bail under Section 439 Cr. P.C. by the learned Sessions Judge on 29.4.1999, 30.4.1999 and 4.5.1999 respectively.
8. While investigation in FIR No. 81/99 of P.S. Vidhan Sabha was being made in the manner stated above one Salimuddin @ Salim lodged a report on 24.4.1999 at 9.30 p.m. alleging therein that some times in the month of August Arun Sogani and some policemen reached his shop and told him that the shop in possession of the informant had been sold by Arun Sogani to D.G. Saheb; that on the next day one Ayub Chobla took him to the residence of D.G. Sahab where the petitioner asked him to vacate the shop as that and all the other property around it had been purchased by him from Bhartesh Chandra Sogani. On this report Crimes No. 83/99 under Section 384 IPC was registered at the same Police Station Vidhan Sabha on 24.4.1999.
9. On the same day, i.e. on 24.4.1999 at 10.15 p.m. yet one another person, Bhanwar Singh lodged a report with the same police station alleging therein that some time in August, 1998 the petitioner and some other boys had threatened him with dire consequences, if he did not vacate the shop in his possession. On such report Crime No. 84/99 U/Ss. 452, 384 IPC was registered at Police Station Vidhan Sabha against the petitioner and some boys.
10. Though the petitioner was arrested on 24.4.1999 at 11.00 p.m. in Crime No. 81/99 after the registration of the other two cases, viz. Crime Nos. 83 and 84/99 at Police Station Vidhan Sabha, yet he was not arrested in Crime Nos. 83 and 84/99 and no objection appears to have been raised against the order of his release on bail on 29.4.1999 in Crime No. 81/99.
11. On 26.4.1999 at 8.30 p.m., i.e. two days after the arrest of the petitioner in Crime No. 81/99 of Police Station Vidhan Sabha, one Babu Lal Meena lodged a FIR with Police Station Malviya Nagar, Jaipur City, alleging therein that in the year 1990 he had purchased Plot No. 70 admeasuring 257 sq. yds. in Ganesh Vihar Colony for Rs. 36,110/-in the name of his nephew, Mukesh Kumar; that the Patta of the said plot purported to have been issued by Vikas Bhawan Grih Nirman Sahkari Samiti Ltd. Jaipur, had been delivered to him by Sita Ram ASI (CID) who had put him in possession thereof also; that he got the boundary of the plot and a room therein constructed and permitted his friend Gopal Lal Sharma to run his milk dairy therein; that Gopal Lal Sharma carried on his dairy business therein from 1990 to 1997 but during that period the present petitioner took forcible possession of the plot and that about 1-1/2 years back the petitioner belaboured him and threatened him with dire consequences in case he (the informant) ever dared to come to that plot. On this report Crime No. 168/99 under Sections 420, 467, 471, 384, 323, 448 IPC and Section 3(v) SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 was registered at Police Station Malviya Nagar against the petitioner.
12. In view of the nature of accusation made and multiple cases registered in quick succession against the petitioner, I heard the learned Counsel for the parties at considerable length and also closely went through the relevant case diaries.
13. On behalf of the petitioner Mr. R.S. Rathore, Advocate, vehemently urged that the petitioner was a young man coming from a respectable family which held high reputation in the society, that the father of the petitioner was one of the senior most officers of the Indian Police Service, presently posted as Director General, Civil Defence and Commandant General Home Guards, Rajasthan, Jaipur; that after having finished his studies and established himself as an outstanding cricketer leading the Rajasthan State in Ranji Trophy and playing professional cricket for Surrey League Export and Emmannual Club in England the petitioner finally settled himself in Export business, exporting Handicrafts to foreign markets particularly England; that besides owning a mine at village Dhula in Jaipur Distt. the petitioner inherited three Bighas of agricultural land from his mother and a residential plot in Shyam Nagar Colony in Jaipur from his maternal grand mother; that the petitioner was thus fully and completely engaged in his business activities and at no point of time did he indulge himself in other activities what to speak of property dealing activities; that he absolutely had nothing to do with the present property dispute between the Sogani family on the one hand and its tenants-the various informants-on the other; that the displeasure, annoyance or ill will which his father might have earned from his superiors, colleagues or subordinates and even from the anti social elements he dealt with in the course of the discharge of his official duties as a know strict police officer should not be allowed to reflect upon and mar his career as a businessman and spoil his life as a peace loving citizen. Mr. Rathore further submitted that undoubtedly once a FIR is registered against a person the police has every right to investigate into the offence alleged to have been committed and arrest and bring the offender to books but a citizen should not be allowed to be arrested without there being reasonable suspicion against him about his complicity in the commission of the crime but where after having arrested a person without reasonable suspicion and after having conducted thorough investigation on all material aspects of the case (s) nothing incriminating could be had, permitting the continuance of the investigation would be no less than mental torture to a citizen and would thus amount to gross abuse of the process of law and great injustice to him. Mr. Rathore supported his arguments with the decisions in the cases of Emperor v. Vimal Bhai Deshpande 1946 P.C. 123, Tribhawan Singh v. Rex AIR (36) 1949 Oudh 78 (C.N. 21), D. Ranjan v. Tripura Administration AIR 1965 Tripura 27 (V52 C 12), S.N. Sharma v. Bipen Kumar , Sugwan Pasi and Ors. v. State of Bihar 1978 Cr. L.J. 1062, State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal 1992 Supp. SCC 3, D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal , State of U.P. v. R.K. Srivastava . Pepsi Food Ltd. v. Special Judicial Magistrate and Gajanand Gupta v. State of Rajasthan and Ors. (RCC 1998 Page 294).
14. On the other hand Mr. Rajesh Goswami, the learned Public Prosecutor for the State and Mr. S.C. Gupta Advocate appearing for the informants in all the petitions urged with equal industry that it is settled position of law that investigations into cognizable offences by the police should not be curbed by the courts in their inception and this court should exercise its exceptional powers under Section 482 Cr. P.C. with great care, caution and circumspection and in rarest of rare cases, that in the course of investigation in FIR No. 81/99 P.S. Vidhan Sabha reasonable suspicion of complicity of the petitioner in the commission of the offences in that case had arisen and therefore he was arrested therein; that after the arrest of the petitioner in that case incriminating evidence was collected by the police in that case and thereafter several other cases of the same nature involving the same or similar property were also registered against the petitioner and he was yet to be arrested in those cases and that since other persons, accused in all such cases, did not complain against the registration of those cases against them, these petitions by the petitioner alone should not be given any consideration. The learned Public Prosecutor and the learned Counsel for the informants supported their arguments with the decision in the cases of State of Bihar v. Murad Ali Khan , State of Kerala and Ors. v. O.C. Kuttan , Rajesh Bajaj v. State of N.C.T. of Delhi 1998 Cr. L.J. 1833, Mohd. Nazim v. State 1998 Cr. L.J. 1089. R.D. Bajaj and Anr. v. KPS Gill and Anr. , Mushtaq Ahmed v. Mohd. Habibur Rehman Faizi 1996 Cr. L.J. 1877, State of U.P. v. O.P. Sharma 1996 Cr. L.J. 1878, State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal , Jogender Pal Vohra and Ors. v. State of Haryana 1998 Cr. L.J. 2592.
15. Way back in the case of Emperor v. Khawaja Nazir Ahmed AIR 1945 PC 18, the Privy Council had observed that "the function of the judiciary and the police are complementary not overlapping and the combination of individual liberty with a due observation of law and order is only to be obtained by leaving each to exercise its own function, always, of course, subject to the right of the court to intervene in an appropriate case when moved under Section 491 Cr. P.C. to give direction in the nature of habeas corpus." The clear cut and well demarcated sphere of activity in the field of crime detection and crime punishment, as laid down by the Privy Council, has all along been kept in mind by the Indian Courts while appreciating the question relating to the extent of "power of the police to investigate" and the duty of the courts to protect "individual liberty" of the citizen and to maintain a balanced in combination between the two.
16. The police, under Section 154(1) Cr. P.C, have a statutory duty to register a cognizable offence and thereafter a statutory right to investigate such offence, but the statutory right of the police to investigation a cognizable offence is subject to the fulfillment of a pre-requisite condition of having "reasons to suspect", which is contemplated in Section 157(1), for further action in the matter. In this behalf it may be recalled that the Code of Criminal Procedure 1861 did not require the condition of entertaining the reasons to suspect the commission of an offence by the police before commencement of the investigation. But subsequently, by inserting Section 114 in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1872 and introducing Section 157 in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1882 and retaining the same in the present Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 with no objection by the Law Commission of India in its Forty First Report the Legislature made its intention quite clear that before proceeding to investigate the facts and circumstances of the case the officer in charge of the police station should have "reasons to suspect" the commission of a cognizable offence in the case reported to him.
17. Here, I would like to emphasis that Section 157(1) requires the police officer to have "reason to suspect" only with regard to the "commission of an offence" but not with regard to the involvement of an accused in the commission of the crime. Before depriving a citizen of his liberty on the ground of his involvement in the commission of a cognizable offence "the reason to suspect" held by the police officer with regard to the commission of a cognizable offence must get converted into "reasons to believe" with regard to his involvement in the commission of such offence. Some incriminating evidence collected by the police officer or incriminating circumstance appearing in the course of investigation against the accused may make the basis of his "reasons to believe" with regard to the involvement of the accused in the commission of crime.
18. The expression "reason to suspect the commission of an offence", as was observed in Bhajan Lal's case (supra) means" the sagacity of rationally inferring the commission of a cognizable offence based on the specific articulate facts mentioned in the First Information Report as well as in the annexures, if any, enclosed and any attending circumstances which may not amount to proof." In this behalf it is well to remember the following observations made by the Apex Court in the case of State of Gujarat v. Mohan Lal J. Parwal .
Whether or not the officer concerned had entertained reasonable belief under the circumstances, is not a matter, which can be placed under legal microscope, with an over-indulgent eye which sees no evil anywhere within the range of its eye sight. The circumstances have to be viewed from the experienced eye of the officer who is well equipped to interpret the suspicious circumstances and to form a reasonable belief in the light of the said circumstances.
19. With the above well settled position of law on the right and power of the police with regard to the condition precedent to the commencement of investigation under Section 157 Cr. P.C. the question as to whether Section 157 Cr. P.C. gives the police officers, in the field of investigation, total immunity from judicial reviewability was considered by the Apex Court in Bhajan Lal's case (supra). Their Lordships made the following pertinent observations in that behalf in para 54;
From the above discussion, it is pellucid that the commencement of investigation by a police officer is subject to two conditions, firstly, the police officer should have reason to suspect the commission of cognizable offence as required by Section 157(1) and secondly, the police officer should subjectively satisfy himself as to whether there is sufficient ground for entering on an investigation even before he starts an investigation into the facts and circumstances of the case as contemplated under Clause (b) of the proviso to Section 157(1) of the Code.
20. Expressing their concern for personal liberty of a citizen in the context of the rule, laid down in Khawaja Nazir Ahmed's case (supra) and emphasising the need for exception to the observations made by their Lordships of the Privy Council therein, the Apex Court remained the courts of the following observations made in the case of R.P. Kapoor v. State of Punjab .
It is of utmost importance that investigation into criminal offences must always be free from any objectionable features or infirmities which may legitimately lead to the grievance of the accused that the work of investigation is carried on unfairly or with any ulterior motive.
and reiterated the same in the case of Nondhi Satpathy v. P.L. Dani in following words:
...a police officer who is not too precise, too sensitive and too constitutionally conscious is apt to trample under foot the guaranteed right of testimonial lacitness.
21. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court finally ruled in para 60 in Bhajan Lal's case (supra) as under:
Mathew, J. in his majority judgment in Prabhu Dayal Deorath v. The District Magistrate, Kamrup while emphasising the preservation of personal liberty has expressed his view thus:
We say, and we think it is necessary to repeat, that the gravity of the evil to the community resulting from anti social activities can never furnish an adequate reason for invading the personal liberty of a citizen, except in accordance with the procedure established by the Constitution and the laws. The history of personal liberty is largely the history of insistence on observance of procedure. Observance of procedure has been the bastion against wanton assaults on personal liberty over the years. Under our Constitution, the only guarantee of the personal liberty for a person is that he shall not be deprived of its except in accordance with the procedure established by law.
22. It may be noted that while according due recognition and approval to the right of the police to investigate a cognizable offence without interference from the courts (Khawaja Nazir Ahmed's case) the Apex Court has equally appreciated the importance and value of the right of an individual to liberty (R.P. Kapoor's and P.L. Bani's cases). Both these rights, i.e. the right of the police to investigate a cognizable offence and the right of a person to his individual liberty are no doubt amenable to judicial reviewability but the principles applicable to the two may be a bit different. The principle generally applicable to both is that the power of the High Court under Section 482 Cr. P.C. being quite exceptional, should be sparingly exercised with great care and caution in rarest of rare cases with the sole object of preventing the abuse of the process of law/court or for securing the ends of justice. Where in a given case the facts stated or allegations made in a complaint or First Information Report do disclose the commission of a cognizable offence such exceptional powers should not be exercised at that initial stage of the criminal proceedings. In other words, such powers may be exercised at that initial stage of criminal proceedings even, if the complaint/FIR does not disclose the commission of a cognizable case. Similarly, if incriminating evidence or circumstance has been collected in the course of preliminary investigation by the police against a person showing his involvement in the commission of such cognizable offence, again the power under Section 482 Cr. P.C. should not be exercised at that stage of the investigation. In other words, if investigation made on the relevant and material points, which may show the involvement of a person in the commission of the cognizable offence, has failed to bring out any incriminating evidence or circumstance against him, showing his involvement in such offence, powers under Section 482 Cr. P.C. may be exercised to secure the ends of justice to him. For, continuous apprehension for indefinite time of being prosecuted is no less than a specie of mental torture (D.K. Basil's case) and mental torture caused by continuous apprehension of being prosecuted, resulting from pendency of investigation into an offence, or indefinite period, howsoever indirect it may be, has its own effect on the health, morality, confidence and thinking of a person disturbing his right to live a peaceful life (Gaja Nand Gupta's case). The stage of investigation and the nature of material at such stage are the relevant factors to appreciate in right perspective the combination of the two rights i.e. the right of the police to investigate a cognizable offence and the right of a person to his individual liberty, in the matter of exercise of the powers under Section 482 Cr. P.C. by the High Court. And that depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case.
23. Coming now to the facts and circumstances of each of the particular cases, presently before me, I find that the contents of each of the FIRs including those which were received by the police in quick succession after the arrest of the petitioner in FIR No. 81/99, which had been lodged on 22.4.1999 at 2.55 p.m. with P.S. Vidhan Sabha, disclosed the commission of certain cognizable offences. The substance of the facts stated therein was that the land including the shops thereon wherein the informants or their men carried on their business pursuits, was owned by Sogani family which was interested in getting the same vacated by them and for that purpose the members of that family with the assistance of some policemen, some of whom were represented and reported to be posted at the office/residence of Sh. Shyam Pratap Singh Rathore, D.G. Police, had approached the informants and threatened them and even, allegedly, abducted Kaloo Ram (informant in FIR No. 81/99). Such contents of these FIRs did disclose the commission of certain cognizable offences. On principles stated herein above this court would decline to interfere with and quash the investigation in all these cases at their very inception. Thus in so far as the right of the police to investigate the cognizable offences disclosed by the contents of the FIRs in the four cases is concerned this court approves of such right of the police and refuses to exercise its powers under Section 482 Cr. P.C. to quash the investigation in those cases in their entirety.
24. Now so far as petitioner's right to individual liberty is concerned, I find that such a right of the petitioner has already been subjected to invasion by the police by his arrest on 24.4.1999 in FIR No. 81/99 P.S. Vidhan Sabha. The very fact that after his arrest the petitioner was kept in police custody at the said police station and produced before the Magistrate on 25.4.1999, purportedly 'Ba-pardah', which fact the Magistrate positively negatived in his order dated 25.4.1999 while committing the petitioner to police judicial custody, and finally the Sessions Judge releasing him on bail under Section 439 Cr. P.C. on 29.4.1999, amply goes to show that the right of the petitioner to individual liberty had already been lost by him before reaching this court. The stage of seeking the quashing of the FIRs and consequently protection of his right to liberty is already over in so far as FIR No. 81/99 P.S. Vidhan Sabha is concerned. This position of facts, however, has a material relevance to the discussion on FIR Nos. 83/99 and 84/99 P.S. Vidhan Sabha and 168/99 S.B. Malviya Nagar which discussion is yet to follow.
25. Now the pertinent question that arises for consideration is whether the grievance of the petitioner against the continuance of investigation against him in FIR No. 81/99 P.S. Vidhan Sabha and the apprehended and threatened deprivation of his right to individual liberty in FIR Nos. 83/99 and 84/99 of P.S. Vidhan Sabha and FIR No. 168/99 P.S. Malviya Nagar is well founded and justifies the exercise of the exceptional powers of this court under Section 482 Cr. P.C. to prevent the abuse of the process of law and secure the ends of justice for him.
26. The facts stated in FIR Nos. 81/99, 83/99 and 84/99 registered at Police Station Vidhan Sabha and the material collected in the course of the investigation made therein upto the time these petitions were filed in this court disclose that the common basis of investigation in all those FIRs is the allegation that 2500 sq. yds. of the land, whereupon the informants were allegedly carrying on their different business activities, was owned by Somani Family, that the said Somani Family wanted to get the said property vacated from the tenants, i.e. the informants and for that purpose the members of the Somani Family had not only extended threatening to them but had also filed civil suits against some of them for eviction and also obtained decrees of eviction against them; that the Somani Family was rumoured to have sold the property to Sri Shyam Pratap Singh Rathore, D.G., as was reported and represented to them by the persons approaching them and extending threatening to them. Though the petitioner was not named in FIR No. 81/99 as one of the abductors of Kalu Ram, while several others were specifically named as such yet after conducting preliminary investigation in that case the investigating officer considered it proper to arrest the petitioner on 24.4.1999. The basis of the satisfaction of the investigating officer for suspected involvement of the petitioner in the abduction and wrongful confinement of Kalu Ram was the statement of Kalu Ram recorded under Section 161 Cr. P.C. wherein he had stated that a young man had given him threatening as also beating in the factory premises at Mohana Road and thereafter in Room No. 212 of Chaupal Hotel and had also offered a sum of Rs. 5/- lacs to him to vacate the property in his possession and also to get the other tenements vacated from others, but such young man had denied that the property had been purchased by Sh. Shyam Pratap Singh Rathore, D.G. or his men and had instead told him that he was a "Miyan" (Muslim) and who had then ordered for his release. On the basis of such statement of Kalu Ram the investigating officer had called for the petitioner to the police station and after some interrogation arrested him and allegedly kept him 'Ba-pardah' for the purpose of getting him identified by Kalu Ram, and possibly by some others, at a test identification parade in order to prove the identity of the petitioner as being the same young man, referred to by him in his statement. Just before or soon after the appearance of the petitioner at Police Station Vidhan Sabha around 10.00 p.m. on 24.4.1999 FIR No, 83/99 was registered at 4.30 p.m. at the instance of Salimuddin @ Salim and FIR No. 84/99 at 10.15-p.m. at the instance of Bhanwar Singh, both tenants in the same disputed property owned by Somanis. Although the petitioner was purported to have been kept 'Ba-pardah' and was represented to have been so produced before the Magistrate on 25.4.. 1999 but, as pointed out earlier, the Magistrate specifically mentioned in his order dated 25.4.1999 that the petitioner was not produced 'Ba-pardah' before him. The remarks made by the Magistrate in that behalf get strengthened by the fact that whereas Abdul Malik, Bhairoo Ram Yadav and Rajni Kant were put up at the test identification parades for being identified by Kalu Ram, and he correctly identified them as his abductors, the present petitioner was never put up at a test identification parade for identification by the said star witnesses namely, Kalu Ram, Salim and Bhanwar Singh, who were the informants of FIR Nos. 81, 83 and 84 of 1999. The petitioner was though released on bail U/s. 439 Cr. P.C. on 29.4.1999 yet at no point of time prior to his release any request was made for holding test identification parade for him. Thus there was no evidence of identification of the petitioner indicating his involvement in the commission of the cognizable offences in these three cases.
27. In, so far as the allegations regarding petitioner or his father having purchased the disputed property from Sogani's is concerned no documentary evidence in support of such allegation could be collected in the course of investigation conducted even after the arrest of the petitioner and other accused persons. On being interrogated the petitioner as also Neeraj Sogani, a co-accused from Sogani family, denied to have entered into such a transaction. The investigating officer tried to collect evidence on the point if any stamp papers were ever purchased by any of the concerned persons so as to support such a necessary fact. S/Shri Jagdev and Girwar Singh Assistant Sub-Inspectors were though deputed to verify as to whether any stamp papers were purchased by or in the names of Neeraj Sogani, Bhartesh Chandra Sogani, Arun Sogani, Rajiv Rathore petitioner or Kalu Ram, the alleged abducted person, from any stamp vendor in collectorate, Jaipur during the periods between July and August 1998 and April 1999, yet neither of the two ASIs could submit a positive report in that behalf despite enquires from relevant quarters. Thus no evidence to support the very basis of the involvement of the petitioner in the commission of offences in all these three cases could be collected despite deep and thorough investigation.
28. Efforts appear to have also been made in another direction to establish the transaction of sale and purchase between the Soganis and the petitioner. In the course of investigation it was noticed that in A/c 1254 of Neeraj Sogani and A/c No. 65 of Sh. Bhartesh Chandra Sogani and Smt. Manju Lata Sogani with Punjab National Bank sums of Rs. 5,00,000/- and Rs. 355000/- respectively were credited on 25.7.1998 on the basis of cheques issued by the petitioner for RUDA, A-30, Sanjay Marg, Gopal Bari, Jaipur drawn on his A/c No. 2154 with Indian Overseas Bank. Since both the cheques were not cleared hence debit entries were made on 27.7.1998 in both the relevant accounts. However, the amount of Rs. 3,55,000/- was again credited on 29.7.1998 in the account of Shri Bhartesh Chandra Songani.
29. On being interrogated on the point the petitioner had told that he had advanced a sum of Rs. 3,55,000/- to Shri Bhartesth Chand Sogani as loan. This version of the petitioner was not controverted by the Soganis. Despite efforts made by the Investigating Officer no material could be collected by him to prima-facie show that the said amount was advanced by the petitioner not as 'loan' but towards the consideration of any transaction of the purchase of an immovable property. Neeraj Sogani denied to have ever entered into any sort of agreement for sale of the disputed property to the petitioner. Thus there was no document or other material on the case diaries of the relevant FIRs to prima-facie show or indicate that the petitioner or his father had purchased or agreed to purchase the disputed property from the Saganis.
30. Contrary to the above the arrest of Neeraj Sogani and non-arrest of any other member of the Sogani family, who were in the FIR, go to show that those were in litigation with their tenants including Kalu Ram and hence may be actively interested to obtain possession thereof for themselves through Court process or otherwise with the help of some anti-social element in connivance with some irresponsible policemen.
31. In the course of Investigation of FIR No. 81/99 the investigating officer had come to know that Mobile Phone No. 98290 57862 was used by the abductors of Kalu Ram to make calls to the shop/house of the witness and to some other places even, including the official residence of the D.G. It was known on thorough and minute investigation, that the said Mobile Phone belonged to co-accused Abdul Malik Elahi and was used by another co-accused Munna @ Virender Singh during the relevant period of abduction and detention/confinement of Kalu Ram. The said Mobile Phone besides a revolver, was later on recovered from the tenanted residence of Munna at C-52, Sanjay Nagar Jaipur and his Maruti Zen Car RJ 14-2C-8318 from Shiv Motors Service Centre, Maharani Farm at Durgapura Jaipur at his information and instance. No evidence could be collected to the effect that the petitioner or any other members of his family had ever had a talk with Kalu Ram or any other person during that period, despite efforts having been made with petitioner's relatives telephones at Delhi even. On the contrary it was ascertained and verified that the petitioner had left Jaipur for Delhi by car on 19.4.1999 at about 8.00 or 9.00 P.M. and on his way to Delhi he stayed at Mid-way at Behror for the night and left Behror Midway in the next morning and reached Delhi at about 8.00 A.M. and stayed at the RSEB Rest House there till 6.00 P.M. on 21.4.1999. The information so given by the petitioner about himself in the course of his interrogation was confirmed by the persons and officers posted at Behror Midway and RSEB Guest House at New Delhi. It was thus positively established that during the relevant night and the day thereafter the petitioner was not at all in Jaipur.
32. To conclude, it is gathered on study of the relevant material placed before me that despite conducting detailed and minutest investigation on all material points no evidence showing the involvement of the petitioner as a co-conspirator in the commission of cognizable offences in connection with the forcible dispossession of the tenants of Samani family in the disputed property could be collected in all these three cases. In fact there is no material to prima facie show and establish that the present petitioner Rajiv Rathore ever entered into a criminal conspiracy with other co-accused and in pursuance of such criminal conspiracy cognizable offences were committed against the informants.
33. Now coming to FIR No. 168/99 P.S. Malvlya Nagar, it may be recalled that this case was registered on 26.4.1999 when the petitioner already stood arrested in FIR Nos. 81, 83 and 84 of 1999 of P.S. Vidhan Sabha. According to the contents of the FIR Baboo Lal Meena informant had purchased the disputed Plot in the name of his nephew Mukesh in the year 1990 and the Patta thereof had been delivered to him by Sita Ram ASI, co-accused, who had put him in possession of the said plot. It was further alleged that after purchase of the property he had constructed the boundary, two rooms and water tank therein and licensed out the same to his friend Gopal Lal Sharma who carried on a milk dairy thereon from 1990 to 1997, but about 1, 1/2 back the petitioner ousted him from possession of the plot and obtained unlawful possession.
34. On investigation the police collected material to the effect that the disputed plot was the property of Jaipur Development Authority (JDA), that Baboo Lal Meena, the informant used to work as a "Dalal" for the Ganesh Vihar Jagatpura Scheme of the Vikas Bhawan Grah Nirman Sahkari Samiti Ltd. Jaipur, that during the year 1990. Baboo Lal informant in order to take unlawful possession of the disputed land lying vacant and belonging to the JDA tried twice to construct the boundary thereon but Sita Ram ASI, the accused in this case who stood deputed with JDA at that time, acting under the orders of the Enforcement Officer Shri Hari Shankar Sharma, got the boundary walls demolished, that the informant obtained a Patta in respect of the disputed land from the said housing society; that Shambhoo Dayal and Jagdish also obtained a Patta of the same plot from another housing society called Mahavir Nagar Grah Nirman Co-operative Society Ltd. Jaipur, constructed two shops thereon and obtained electric connections and they were presently in possession of the said property and their possession over the plot stood protected by a stay order issued in their favour by the JDA Tribunal.
35. On being examined by the police, Gopal Lal, whom the informant had represented as his friend and as such admitted him as licensee on the disputed plot in the year 1990 for carrying on a Milk Dairy, stated that he had been carrying on his Milk Dairy in Plot No. 365 of A Block, Malviya Nagar; that since his business did not pick up there his friend named Girdhari Lal advised him to shift to the disputed plot which was being represented by his friend Baboo Lal as belonging to him, that some times in the month of April 1996 he shifted his two buffalos in the disputed plot and added two more to the number after some time but since his business did not pick up there also and his health was also falling, he sold the buffalos and vacated the disputed plot in January 1997. The witness emphatically denied that during the period, of his possession over the disputed plot, the petitioner or any other person had ever approached him to get the plot vacated. Hari Prasad corroborated him and added that when he was removing the tins and a broken bicycle, left by Gopal on the plot, two persons had protested and told him that the plot was owned by them. There is no material on record to indicate that the alleged two persons were the petitioner and Sita Ram ASI.
36. On further investigation the police collected evidence to the effect that the disputed plot and other adjoining land were parts of Khasra Nos. 50 and 51 of village Chak Dhola which was recorded as Gher Mumkin in the name of JDA and that the Assistant Registrar Co-operative Societies who was appointed Administrator for Mahavir Nagar Grah Nirman Society, aforesaid, was already seized of the dispute relating to the issue of allotments letters by two different societies in respect to the JDA property, including the disputed Plot.
37. In view of the position of facts stated above and the evidence collected by the police in the course of investigation in this case there is absolutely no material to show or even to indicate the involvement of the petitioner in the dispute over the possession of the property in question between Baboo Lal Meena informant on the one hand and Shambhoo Dayal and Jagdish, who were found in possession of the disputed shops, on the other. Whatever dispute might by there between them, it is being looked into by the Asstt. Registrar Co-operative Societies as per provisions of the Rajasthan Co-operative Societies Act.
38. To sum up, after examining these cases, which came up before this court not at the stage of their inception but at much later a stage when investigation on almost all possible aspects had been thoroughly made by the police and the continuance and pending of the investigation against the petitioner was challenged on the ground of abuse of the process of the Court leading to continued mental torture to him, I find no material and legal evidence showing involvement of the petitioner as a co-conspirator or otherwise in the commission of alleged cognizable offences in any of these cases. The continuance or pendency of investigations against the petitioner in these cases, under the facts and circumstances narrated above, and with no material incriminating against him, having been collected, does, in my opinion, amount to abuse of the process of the law. Therefore, in order to secure the ends of justice for him it is expedient in the interest of justice to quash the investigation in all these cases as against the petitioner. I am, therefore, of the opinion; that these are the fit cases wherein this court should exercise its powers under Section 482 Cr. P.C.
39. Before I part with these cases I would like to observe that in view of the fact that the petitioner had stated in his petitions that these cases were registered against him due to ill will or malice entertained against his father (who happened to be a very high, respectable and responsible police officer in the police force of this State) by his subordinates, colleagues or superior officers I had to examine and re-examine the material on the relevant case diaries in great depth and detail. Ordinarily this Court should not and does not enter into such detailed scrutiny in such matters at the stage of pendency of investigation. But in view of the nature of the offences alleged to have been committed and allegations of involvement made against a highly placed, respectable and responsible police officer and his son, I considered it my duty to thoroughly examine the material available on the relevant case-diaries.
40. No doubt the relations of ones parents with others, their acts of omission and commission as against others in the discharge of their official or non-official duties, particularly when such parents are principled and strict disciplinarian, may reflect upon their children, moreso in the state of fast declining values of life in our present day society. But I find in material against any of the police officers, high or low, in the hierarchy of Police Force, to view these cases from that angle. I find that in view of the nature of offences reported to have been committed in these cases and on coming to know that some policemen, who were or might have been posted at the office/residence of the father of the petitioner at any point of time, appear to have tried, in connivance and collusion with other co-accused, to abuse or misuse their such position, the investigating officer thoroughly investigated the cases from all possible angles in so far as the alleged involvement of the petitioner was concerned. The investigating officer and the other officers superior to him and who supervised the investigation in these cases acted in the manner they were expected to do. They were justified in commencing investigation in these cases and to have investigated the cases quite thoroughly and in great depth on all relevant aspects particularly when serious allegations were made against a close relation of a member of their own service community. It is altogether a different matter that despite all serious and sincere efforts of the investigating officer no incriminating material or legal evidence could be had on such thorough investigation against the petitioner to show his involvement in the commission of cognizable offences. While on the one hand this Court finds no material on record to attribute any malice or illwill on the part of the investigating officer or any other police officer, inferior or Superior to him, against the petitioner, this Court equally appreciates the conduct and behaviour of the petitioner and his father in allowing the law to take its own course. On the mere asking of the investigating officer the petitioner presented himself at the police station and offered himself for arrest raising no protest or resistance. His highly placed father, who occupied the highest position in police force of the State at that time, allowed the law to take its own course and does not appear to have ever tried to change such course and influence the investigation in any manner. In the totality of facts and circumstances of these cases and particularly the position of material on the records of these cases, the petitioner, I think, in entitled to the relief claimed in these petitions.
41. In the result, the continuance and pendency of the investigations in FIR Nos. 81/99, 83/99 84/99 of P.S. Vidhan Sabha Jaipur and F.I.R. No. 168/99 P.S. Malviya Nagar Jaipur as against Rajiv Rathore petitioner is hereby quashed and terminated. As against other accused persons investigations in all the above FIRs may be continued as per law.
42. All the four petitions stand disposed of in the manner stated above.