Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: acb in Anurag Thakur And Another vs State Of H.P on 30 May, 2016Matching Fragments
the public servants from discharging their duties by entering into the Police Station and the Office of Superintendent of Police (SV & ACB).
5. The record was produced by the learned Advocate General during the course of hearing of the matter.
6. I have heard the learned counsel appearing on both the sides of and have also gone through the records minutely.
7. Mr. Shrawan Dogra, learned Advocate General has drawn the rt attention of the Court to DDR entry No. 12(A) from the records produced before the Court. It is stated in the DDR that on 24.10.2013 Insp. Jagdish Chand along with Insp. Prem Chand and other police officials were present in Police Station Hazoor (SV & ACB), Dharamshala. The petitioner No. 1 with Mr. Parveen Sharma, Ex MLA, Mr. Sanjay Sharma, PRO (HPCA), Mr. Virender Kanwar, MLA along with 200/250 Bhartiya Janta Party Yuva Morcha (BJYM) workers carrying banners and bursting crackers entered the gate. They entered the Police Station. Mr. Parveen Sharma and petitioner No. 1 enquired from Insp. Jagdish Chand as to who has called them. He told them that Sh. Yog Raj, Addl. Superintendent of Police was conducting investigation in Himachal Pradesh Cricket Association case and he was out of the Police Station. They asked for his identity. He disclosed the same. They asked him about the whereabouts of Superintendent of Police. Thereafter, the petitioner No. 1 along with other 25-30 persons forcibly entered the Office of Superintendent of Police. They raised slogans against the Chief Minister for half an hour. They disrupted the government administration in the Police Station and Office of Superintendent of Police (SV & ACB) for half an hour. The copy of DDR No. 12(A) was sent by the .
13. What emerges from the facts enumerated hereinabove is that the petitioners according to the averments made in the complaint, filed under the signatures of SHO, PS Dharamshala, firstly entered the Police Station (SV & ACB), Dharamshala and thereafter barged into the Office of Superintendent of Police and thereby disrupted government administration in the Police Station and the Office of Superintendent of Police. The complainant, in the present case, is Insp. Jagdish Chand who was the SHO (SV & ACB), Dharamshala. DDR No. 12(A) was recorded by SHO, PS (SV & ACB) giving therein the details, the manner in which the accused have entered into the Police Station and the Office of Superintendent of Police and raised slogans. The copy of this report was ordered to be sent to the .
SHO, Police Station Dharamshala through Superintendent of Police (SV & ACB). The Superintendent of Police (SV & ACB) NR, Dharamshala sent DD entry No. 12(A) dated 24.10.2013 to Superintendent of Police, Kangra at Dharamshala on 28.10.2013 for taking necessary action. Thereafter, SHO, Police Station, Dharamshala entered DDR No. 15(A). The copy of the same of was sent to the Superintendent of Police (SV & ACB), Dharamshala.
14. The complaint could be filed, as per the mandatory provisions rt of Section 195 (1) (a) Cr.P.C., either by Insp. Jagdish Chand and other police officers/officials present in the Police Station (SV & ACB) or a public servant to whom he was administratively subordinate, including Superintendent of Police (SV & ACB). However, the fact of the matter is that in the instant case, the complaint has been filed under the signatures of SHO, PS Dharamshala, before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dharamshala, on the basis of which cognizance was taken by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kangra at Dharamshala. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kangra at Dharamshala should have ensured while according the sanction to investigate the matter whether Section 195 (1) (a) Cr.P.C. has been complied with or not. The Superintendent of Police (SV & ACB) has merely sent the communication to the Superintendent of Police, Kangra at Dharamshala on 28.10.2013 asking him to take necessary action in accordance with law. The SHO, PS Dharamshala was not competent to file the complaint in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kangra at Dharamshala seeking permission to investigate the matter. Thus, the cognizance taken by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kangra at Dharamshala on the basis of the complaint filed by .