Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

1. By this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Cr.P.C.'), petitioners are seeking quashing of the case FIR No. 557/93, under Sections 186/332/353/506/34 IPC and Sections 39/192 of Motor Vehicles Act, P.S. Patel Nagar pending the court of Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi.

2. Briefly stated the facts are that on 25th August, 1993, Constable Sukhbir Singh, lodged the report stating that he along with Constable Gopal Dutt were on official duty at DHG near Kachha Rasta, East Patel Nagar, Delhi; they had instructions to check vehicles; at 2.00 a.m. (night) one maruti car Dl. 2CD 5231 came from the side of Lal Mandir. It was being driven by petitioner Gaurav Arora, at a fast speed, under the influence of liquor. On suspicion Home Guard Gopal Dutt, No. 9305/DHG signalled the driver to stop. The car driver evaded the signal and Gopal dutt had a narrow escape. The car could be stopped at a distance of about 10 paces. After stopping the car petitioner Gaurav Arora stated abusing and assaulted Home Guard Gopal Dutt, his name plate was removed and he was held from his collar. In the meantime another person G.S. Arora, reached there, who slapped Gopal Dutt and his cap fell down. When the complainant tried to intervene he was also assaulted. Several persons gathered there, who saved Gopal Dutt. On this report, case was registered. Petitioners Gaurav Arora and Gurcharan Singh Arora were sent for medical examination. They were found under the influence of liquor. Police completed the investigation and filed the charge-sheet under Section 173 Cr.P.C. Along with the charge-sheet a complaint under Section 195 Cr.P.C. by the SHO of P.S. Patel Nagar was also filed. On 29th March, 1994, the Magistrate took cognizance for the offence under Sections 186/332/353/506/34 IPC and Sections 185 and 39/192 of Motor Vehicles Act. On 2nd August, 1996 charge was framed under the aforesaid Sections against the petitioners. On 12th December, 1997, petitioners moved an application before the Court for dropping the charges. Learned Metropolitan Magistrate dismissed the application 5th March, 1998. This order is under challenge. I have heard learned counsel for parties and have been taken through the record.

4. Learned App for State argued to the contrary and placed reliance on the recent Supreme Court decision in Pankaj Aggarwal and Ors. v. State of Delhi and Anr. 2001(3) Crimes 361 (SC) wherein their Lordships of the Supreme Court after referring to the earlier decision in Durga Charan Naik v. State of Orissa, held that the offences under Sections 186, and 353 or 332 IPC are distinct and in the absence of a compliant under Section 195 Cr.P.C. regarding the offence under Section 186 IPC, trial for the offence under Section 353 or 332 IPC is not barred. It was held:-

5. In view of the above decision, learned counsel for petitioners confined his prayer to dropping of the charge under Section 186 IPC and for directions to the trial court for proceeding with the trial, for the remaining offences under Sections 332/353/506/34 IPC read with Sections 185 and 39/192 of Motor Vehicles Act. Learned APP for State argued that on 2nd October, 1993 along with the report under Section 173 Cr.P.C., SHO of Police Station Patel Nagar had also filed a complaint under Section 195 Cr.P.C. for trial of the petitioner for the offence under Section 186 IPC. It is thus argued that charge under Section 186 is sustainable. In order to appreciate the rival contentions, it would be appropriate to quote relevant portion of complaint. It reads:-

"I Sh. G.L. Mehta, Inspector, SHO, P.S. Patel Nagar, Delhi in pursuance of Section' 195 Cr.P.C. hereby give consent to prosecution (1) Gurcharan Singh Arora S/o Jagaj Nath Arora R/o G-29, Bali Nagar, Delhi, FIR No. 557/93, under Section. 186/332/353/506/34 IPC and 185 & 39/192 M.V. Act, P.S. Patel Nagar, Delhi & (2) Gaurav Arora S/o gurcharan Singh Arora r/o G-29, Gali Nagar, Delhi under Section 186/332/353/506/34 IPC vide case FIR No. 557/93, P.S. Patel Nagar, Delhi."

6. Section 2(d) of Cr.P.C. defines the complaint to mean any allegation made orally or in writing to a magistrate, with a view to his taking action under this Code, that some person, whether known or unknown, has committed an offence, but does not include a police report. It is true that no particular form is prescribed in which the complaint should be made and the substance of the complaint that is to be read. It is not necessary that it should categorise elements of the offence to be charged. It is enough that the facts alleged should constitute an offence for which the accused is charged. It does not matter even if the complainant quotes wrong Sections. The complaint is meant to put the machinery of law in motion. Whether allegations were made with a view to take action against the accused would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case.