Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

1. This criminal revision petition u/s 397 Cr.PC has been filed by the revisionist namely SI Jagdish Prasad for challenging the correctness, legality and propriety of the impugned order dated 05.04.2011 by ld. ACMM, KKD Courts (East), Delhi whereby application moved by the accused/present revisionist for dismissal of the court complaint filed under section 195 CrPC bearing no. 4973/9/09 against him for the offence punishable under Sec. 177 IPC titled as as Court complaint Vs. ASI Jagdish Prasad has been dismissed.

2. Brief facts which are necessary for the disposal of this criminal revision are that present revisionist while posted at PS Seemapuri as an ASI was entrusted with the investigation of case FIR No. 112/2008 PS Dilshad Garden under sections 408/328/379/34 IPC on 05.11.2008 after the denotification of PS Dilshad Garden and transfer of the aforesaid case to PS Seemapuri and in this case bearing FIR no. 112/2008, one Sadashiv, being the driver of the truck, is the main accused and he could not be traced out despite taking various steps. In the meantime, a criminal complaint for the offences punishable under Sections 365/201/34 IPC alongwith an application under section 156 (3) CrPC was filed by complainant Sunder Lal, father of Sadashiv against the complainant of case bearing FIR No. 112/08 PS Dilshad Garden (now PS Seemapuri) and on the directions given under section 156 (3) CrPC passed by ld MM vide its order dated 13.03.2009 an FIR No. 90/09, PS Seemapuri was registered and investigation of this case was also handed over to ASI Jagdish Prasad/present revisionist and during the investigation of these two cases processes under Sec. 82 CrPC against main accused Sadashiv in case bearing FIR no. 112/2008 PS Dilshad Garden (now PS Seemapuri) was got published in the newspaper on the basis of two passport photographs of Sadashiv allegedly taken by ASI Jagdish Prasad being the IO of the case bearing FIR No. 90/09 PS Seemapuri and an application was moved by complainant Sunder Lal, father of Sadashiv, before the court of concerned MM for taking action against ASI Jagdish Prasad for giving false information to the court while obtaining the process under Section 82 CrPC against accused Sadashiv in case bearing FIR No. 112/08, PS Dilshad Garden (now PS Seemapuri) and on the basis of that application, ld MM after taking reply of the ASI Jagdish Prasad/present revisionist stayed the execution of the process under Section 82 CrPC and filed a criminal complaint under section 195 CrPC against ASI Jagdish Prasad for the offence punishable under section 177 IPC for giving false information to the court while obtaining NBWs as well as process under Section 82 CrPC against accused Sadashiv by concealing the fact about the case bearing FIR No. 90/09 PS Seemapuri in which he (Sadashiv) is the victim. In this court complaint case, the present revisionist moved an application for his discharge by dismissing the aforesaid court complaint case but this application has been dismissed by the ld ACMM, KKD Courts (East) vide impugned order dated 05.04.2011. The legality as well as correctness of this impugned order dated 05.04.2011 has been challenged by revisionist on various grounds i.e. legal as well as factual. It is stated that sanction under section 197 CrPC is necessary for the prosecution of revisionist and even as per Sec. 140 D.P. Act, the said complaint case is time barred and moreover, no prima facie case for the offences punishable under sections 177 IPC has been made out because whatever has been done by the present revisionist, being the IO in the aforesaid two cases, is in accordance with law. Even, it is also stated that the application under section 156 (3) CrPC moved by complainant Sunder Lal alongwith his criminal complaint was dismissed by the then MM vide order dated 17.10.08 and that complaint case was fixed for recording of pre summoning evidence but after the transfer of the aforesaid criminal complaint case, complainant Sunder Lal by concealing the material facts regarding the dismissal of this application under Section 156 (3) CrPC obtained the fresh order from the transferee court of ld MM on 13.03.2009.

5. Having bestowed my careful consideration to the rival submissions made by ld counsel for the revisionist as well as ld Addl PP for the State in the light of the facts and circumstances of the case and also the cases relied upon by ld counsel for the revisionist as well as relevant provisions of Sec. 195 CrPC and 340 CrPC, I have come to the conclusion that there is no prima facie against the present revisionist/accused for the offence punishable under Sec. 177 IPC because the present revisionist being the IO of both the cases bearing FIR Nos.

112/08 PS Dilshad Garden (now PS Seemapuri) and 90/09 (PS Seemapuri) was duty bound to conduct the investigation of both cases in accordance with law and obtaining of the NBWs and process under Sections 82 CrPC against accused Sadashiv, who is main accused in case bearing FIR No. 112/2008 PS Dilshad garden (now PS Seemapuri) can not be said to be illegal and unjustified merely on the ground that present revisionist being the IO did not disclose the fact about the case bearing FIR No. 90/09 PS Seemapuri in which Sadashiv is the victim. This action has been taken by the IO bonafidely to proceed with the further investigation of case bearing FIR No. 112/2009 PS Dilshad Garden (now PS Seemapuri) and he can not be said to have obtained the process under Section 82 CrPC by giving any false information knowingly or intentionally with any fraudulent and dishonest purposes. This step was taken by the IO/present revisionist in the discharge of his official duties in connection with the investigation of case bearing FIR No. 112/08. Further, the said complaint under section 195 read with Sec. 340 CrPC filed by the MM concerned is defective and no action can be taken on the basis of such complaint case because in the order dated 22.08.2009 passed by ld MM concerned as well as in complaint under Sec. 195 CrPC filed later on, there is no finding in the inquiry that it is expedient in the interest of justice to make an inquiry against such accused in relation to offence allegedly committed by him. In the absence of such specific finding given by the ld MM concerned in his order, the said criminal complaint under Sec. 195 CrPC is defective and no action can be taken against the accused on the basis of such criminal complaint. Here, it is pertinent to refer the case reported as Amzad Ali V. Ali Biswas [1997 CrlLJ 4180 (Cal)] wherein it has been held that when order under section 340 CrPC was passed by the court without expressing/recording of the finding that it is expedient in the interest of justice that inquiry should be made into the offence, the order is illegal. Similar observations were made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases reported as B.K. Gupta V. Damodar H. Bajaj [2002 SCC (Crl) 1103] and Pritish V. State of Maharashtra [AIR 2002 SC 236]. Since, no prima facie case for the offence punishable under section 177 IPC is made out against the present revisionist in view of the reasons given above and even the complaint under Section 195 read with Sec. 340 CrPC is also defective in the absence of recording the express finding that it is expedient in the interest of justice to make an inquiry against ASI Jagdish Prasad (IO) in relation to the offence punishable under Sec. 177 IPC, I set aside the impugned order dated 05.04.2011 and discharge the accused/present revisionist in the aforesaid court complaint case.