Punjab-Haryana High Court
Palwinder Singh And Anr. vs State Of Punjab And Ors. on 17 January, 1997
Equivalent citations: 1997CRILJ2811
Author: P.K. Jain
Bench: P.K. Jain
JUDGMENT P.K. Jain, J.
1. This petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a direction to the respondents to record first information report against Kuldip Singh and others and then to proceed in accordance with law.
2. The facts necessary for the disposal of this petition are that the petitioners were constructing/ repairing some religious building in their village on 7-4-1995 on an authorization by the village Panchayat. Kuldip Singh and others duly armed with deadly weapons attacked and assaulted the petitioners and others. The injured persons were removed to the civil hospital, Batala, and medically examined. On receipt of information regarding the admission of the injured persons in the hospital, Assistant Sub Inspector Sukhwinder Singh, Police Station, Ghanie Ke Bangar, reached the hospital and obtained medico-legal reports of the injured. The statements of the injured could not be recorded as they were declared unfit for making statements. However, the third injured Sukhdev Singh was declared fit to make a statement. Consequently, the said A.S.I. recorded the statement of Sukhdev Singh.
3. According to the said A.S.I., from the statement of Sukhdev Singh read with the three medico-legal reports of the three injured persons, the commission of the offence under Sections 323/324/325/326, I.P.C., had been established. In the police action, he further recorded that after investigation on the spot as well as from the statements of the injured persons it was found that no weapon was used in the said occurrence and the statements of the three injured persons were contradictory to each other. In this view, the matter was doubtful and consequently a report was recorded in the daily diary. According to the reply filed by the State, the matter was compromised between the parties and daily diary entry No..6 dated 11 -6-1995 (Annexure R. 1) was recorded. It has been further stated that the petitioners had damaged the public property and as such FIR No. 166/95 dated 23-5-1995 for the offence under Section 427, I.P.C. read with Section 2 of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984, had been registered at Police Station Ghanie Ke Banger and in order to put pressure for the withdrawal of the said case, the petitioners have filed the present petition. Similar is the reply filed by respondents Nos. 2 to 11.
4. 1 have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record.
5. Shri D. S. Rajput, Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioners, has argued that once information regarding commission of acognizable offence was conveyed to and recorded by the police, it was the bounden duty of the police to register a case under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') and then to investigate the same in accordance with law. It has been further argued by the learned counsel that the procedure adopted by the police in recording the substance of the statement of Sukhdev Singh in daily diary is contrary to the provisions of Section 154 of the Code. It has also been pointed out by the learned counsel that the petitioners had made a request for the registration of a case to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Batala, as well as the Director General of Police, Punjab but in vain. It has also been pointed out by the learned counsel that no such compromise was ever effected between the parties as alleged and this is a made-out story by the respondents. In support of its plea, the learned counsel has placed reliance upon a well-known judgment of the Apex Court rendered in State of Haryana v. Ch. Bhajan Lal, AIR 1992 Supreme Court 604 : 1992 Cri LJ 527 and a judgment of this Court delivered in Smt. Gurmito v. State of Punjab, 1996 (1) CLR 269 : 1996 Cri LJ 1254.
6. On the other hand Shri G. S. Grewal, Senior Advocate, learned counsel for the respondents Nos. 2 to 11, has argued that the police is not bound to record first information report in each and every matter without satisfying itself regarding the prima facie correctness of the allegations. It has been further argued by the learned counsel that the police was justified in recording the substance of the statement of Sukhdev Singh in the daily-diary and then to close the case after compromise, Further, it has been pointed out by the learned counsel that paras 30 and 31 of the judgment of the Apex Court in Ch. Bhajan Lal's case (supra) is obiter dicta and the question of recording first information report was not in issue in that case. The learned counsel has placed reliance upon a judgment of Full Bench of this Court in Parkash Kaur v. State of Punjab, ILR 1992(1) Punjab and Haryana 18.
7. Shri Rajesh Girshar, learned Assistant A. G. Punjab, has argued that the allegations made by Sukhdev Singh were enquired into and investigated, and it was found that no weapon was used and the statements of the injured persons were contradictory to each other and, therefore, the question of registration of acase under Section 154 of the Code did not arise. It has also been pointed out by the learned Assistant A. G. that once the matter has been compromised vide Annexure P. 2, the daily diary entry was duly recorded.
8. I have given my careful thought to the respective arguments advanced at the Bar.
9. The legal objection raised by the learned counsel for respondents Nos. 2 to 11 to the effect that paras 30 and 31 of the judgment of the Apex Court in Ch. Bhajan Lai's case is obiter dicta can be brushed aside with the following observations of their Lordships in para 27 thereof (at page 535 of Cri LJ) :
Before discussing which of the submissions ought to prevail, we shall in the foremost deal with the legal principles governing the registration of a cognizable offence and the investigation arising thereon.
Thereafter their Lordships dealt with the provisions contained in Sections 154 to 157 of the Code and in para 32 of the judgment laid down the following law : --
It is, therefore, manifestly clear that if any information disclosing a cognizable offence is laid before an officer in charge of a police station satisfying the requirements of Section 154(1) of the Code, the said police officer has no other option except to enter the substance thereof in the prescribed form, that is to say, to register acase on the basis of such information.
While considering the nature and scope of the provisions contained in Sections 154 to 157 of the Code their Lordships also observed :
At the stage of registration of crime or a case on the basis of the information disclosing a cognizable offence in compliance with the mandate of a Section 154(1) of the Code, the concerned police Officer cannot embark upon an enquiry as to whether the information, laid by the informant is reliable and genuine or otherwise and refuse to register a case on the ground that the information is not reliable or credible. On the other hand, the Officer in charge of a Police Station is stautorily obliged to register a case and then to proceed with the investigation if he has reason to suspect the commission of an offence which he is empowered under Section 156 of the Code to investigate, subject to the proviso to Section 157. (As we have proposed to make a detailed discussion about the power of a Police Officer in the field of investigation of a cognizable offence within the ambit of Sections 156 and 157 of the Code in the ensuring part of this judgment, we do not propose to deal with those sections in extenso in the present context) in case, an officer in charge of a Police Station refuses to exercise the jurisdiction vested in him and to register a case on the information of a cognizable offence, reported and thereby violates the statutory duty cast upon him, the person aggrieved by such refusal can send the substance of the information in writing and by post to the Superintendent of Police concerned who if satisfied that the information forwarded to him discloses a cognizable offence, should either investigate the case himself or direct an investigation to be made by any Police Officer subordinate to him in the manner provided by Sub-section (3) or Section 154 of the Code.
Their Lordships were alive to the situation if the Officer in charge of a Police Station can refuse to register a crime on the information of the disclosing a cognizable offence on the ground that the information being given was not credible. While dealing with this aspect in para 31 of the judgment, the following observations were made: --
Be it noted that in Section 154(1) of the Code, the legislature in its collective wisdom has carefully and cautiously used the expression "information" without qualifying the same as in Section 41(1) (a) or (g) of the Code where in the expressions, "reasonable complaint" and "credible information" are used. Evidently, the nonqualification of the word "information" in Section 154(1) unlike in Section 41(1) (a) and (g) of the Code may be for the reason that the Police Officer should not refuse to record an information relating to the commission of a cognizable offence and to register a case thereon on the ground that he is not satisfied with the reasonableness or credibility of the information. In other words, 'reasonableness' or 'credibility' of the said information is not a condition precedent for registration of a case. A comparison of the present Section 154 with those of the earlier Codes will indicate that the legislature had purposely thought it fit to employ only the word "information" without qualifying the said word.
The legal position as emerges from the above judgment of the Apex Court is that any information disclosing a cognizable offence if conveyed to an officer in charge of the Police Station satisfying the requirements of Section 154(1) of the Code, the said Police Officer cannot refuse to register a case on the ground that the information is not reliable or credible. On the other hand, he is bound to enter the substance thereof in the prescribed form, i.e. to say, to register a case on the basis of such information. It is only after the registration of a case as envisaged by Section 154 of the Code that the said Police Officer has been given the option by Section 157 of the Code to make up his mind as to whether he would or would not enter on an investigation. An identical question had arisen before me in Smt. Gurmito's case (supra). After examining the scope of Section 154(1) of the Code and Rule 24.4 of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934, it was observed as. under (at page 1258 of Cri LJ): --
This rule was enacted in the year 1934, and has lost its statutory force in view of the enactment of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973, and the provisions of Section 154 of the Code having been interpreted by the Apex Court, as stated above. It has bee specifically made clear by their Lordships that the legislature had purposely thought it fit to employ only the word "information" without qualifying the said word with the prefix "reasonable" or "credible".
In the same case, it was further observed that: --
The investigation of a cognizable offence is the field exclusively reserved for the Police Officer whose powers in that field are unfettered, but if a Police Officer transgresses the circumscribed limits and exercises his investigatory powers improperly and illegally thereby causing serious prejudice to the informant on other persons, then the Court en being approached by the person aggrieved for the redress of any grievance, has to consider the nature and extent of the breach and pass appropriate 'orders as may be called for without leaving the citizens to the mercy of the police echelons.
10. It is not deisrable for this Court to express any opinion on merits of the allegations or the counter version put forward by the parties in their respective pleadings before me. Suffice it to say that the report made by ASI Sukhwinder Singh after recording a statement of Sukhdev Singh hardly inspires any confidence. For instance, it has been pointed out by him that after in vestigation it has been revealed that no weapon was used in the occurrence. But according to the three medico legal reports of the three injured persons prepared by the doctor of the civil hospital Batala go to show that all the three injured had some injuries caused with a sharp weapon and Sukhdev Singh had one grievous injury also. It is also clear from Annexures P. 6 and P. 7 that the petitioners had approached Senior Superintendent of Police, Batala, as well as Director General of Police, Punjab, with a request for the registration of acase in respect of this incident under Section 154 of the Code but without any result.
11. For reasons mentioned above, this petition is allowed. A direction is issued to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Batala, to get a case registered on the basis of the allegations contained in the present petition as well as the complaint (Annexure P. 6). After the case is registered, the investigation shall be carried out by an officer not below the rank of a Deputy Superintendent of Police. The Registry is directed to send a copy of this order along with the copy of the petition as well as the complaint (Annexure P. 6) to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Batala, for information and necessary compliance.