Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

1. This is a revision petition filed on behalf of petitioner aggrieved by the order of Ld. trial court dated 29.04.2014 whereby petitioner was directed to be summoned as an accused u/s 217/218/201/471/120­B IPC in the complaint pending before Ld. trial court.

2. In terms of allegations, complainant was working as social worker and had initiated action in interest of public at large inviting wrath by police personnel and others with their trying to falsely implicate him in false cases. In terms of complaint, the ancestral property belonging to the grand mother of complainant was purchased by accused no.2 on the basis of forged and fabricated documents from other co­share holders and accused no.2 with the help of gunda elements tried to break the locks of complainant's portion of the second floor on 24.2.2008. A call was made at 100 number by the complainant but in violation of the directions of IO and with the help and consent of accused no.1 i.e. petitioner herein who was SHO of the P.S. concerned, accused no.2 broke open the locks of complainant put upon ground and first floor of the property and falsely called at 100 number on the same date and time. Though accused no.2 could not succeed in her motive but the request of complainant to initiate proceedings u/s 145/146 Cr.P.C. was declined by accused no.1 who was in­charge of police station being SHO, despite endorsement by the IO, hence the complaint was lodged by complainant .

9. On the merits of the case, it was submitted by complainant that prior to filing of complaint, though, he had not issued the prior notice to petitioner but had sent several complaints to senior officers for suitable action after which he was informed that because of the pendency of civil case, police could not take any action, therefore complaint was filed by complainant before Ld. trial court and in such situation, there was no violation of provisions of section 140 of DP Act and 197 of Cr.PC. In terms of own case of complainant, as accused no.2 tried to break open the locks of his portion i.e. second floor on 24.2.2008, a call was made by him at 100 number. Civil suit regarding the said property was pending and the parties had been directed to maintain status quo till final disposal of the civil case and as deposed by CW1, this fact was clearly mentioned by IO in DD no. 18A, 22­A and 44­B dated 24.2.2008 that in the second floor of property, the household goods belonging to complainant were kept and same was within the possession of complainant whereas ground floor and first floor of property were vacant which were not in possession of accused no.2. On the basis of same, it was submitted that accused no. 2 by violation of the directions of IO with the help of petitioner, broke open the locks of complainant put upon the ground floor and first floor of property and falsely called at 100 number on the same date and time when the statement of accused no.2 was recorded by IO who stated that " Mai Kabhi Yha Kabhi Chandni Chowk me Rehti hu. Aj Subah Mai Aai to tala Khol Kar Saman Sukhane neechey gai to sumen mai jakr baithi thi. Itne me Jis se mukadma Chal rha hai police lekr aya ki maine tala tod rakha hai jabki aisa kuch nahi hai" . It was stated that this contradictory statement was recorded with collusion of accused no.1 so that accused no. 2 could succeed to recover the illegal/forceful possession upon the whole property. The Complainant did not place on record any such noting by IO with observation that the first and ground floor of property were vacant and not in possession of accused no.2, whereas in terms of statement of opposite party as placed reliance upon by complainant himself as Ex. CW1/B, it was specifically stated by her that after the purchase of house when she went to take the possession, lock was found on the staircase and when she tried to open the locks, complainant started quarreling with her which was followed by a civil dispute. For the property at ground and first floor, she specifically stated that she was in possession of the same and rather in terms of Ex. CW1/E, it was reported by ASI Pooran Singh with respect to complaint dated 1.10.2010 that the proceedings u/s 145/146 Cr.P.C. could not be initiated because of pendency of civil suit. The abovesaid observation was endorsed by SHO concerned on 20.10.2010 . Similarly vide Ex. CW1/F on the complaint of complainant, it was reported by SI Dharampal Singh that the civil suit pertaining to the property was pending and if the complainant insisted that because of the property, there was daily dispute between the parties, then SHO may initiate appropriate action on the same.

10. The grievance of petitioner is that SHO concerned had not initiated proceedings u/s 145/146 Cr.P.C. despite his repeated complaints. However it may be noted that besides the fact that the refusal by petitioner to initiate proceedings was under the colour of his officials duties, even otherwise the initiation of proceedings u/s 145/146 Cr.P.C. was not warranted in view of the pendency of civil suit and order of maintaining status quo by the civil court.

14. As already observed, the action of petitioner in declining to initiate proceedings u/s 145/146 Cr.P.C. due to pendency of the civil suit not only was justified but was within the discharge of his duties. Rather initiation of said action as desired by the complainant despite status quo order passed by civil court may have violated the directions of law and in these circumstances insistence of complainant rather should be termed as seeking violation of law and not the compliance thereof, therefore besides action of petitioner not only being in diligence discharge of duties but was also under the colour of duty, thereby attracting the protection u/s 140 of DP Act as well as of section 197 Cr.P.C. , mandate of which provisions is for protection of police officials from unnecessary harassment for the acts done on duty and by permitting the proceedings to be run against the petitioner, in these circumstances would not only lead to abuse of legal system but also would have demoralizing affect on the police officials who otherwise have or tried to discharge their duties in diligent and dutiful manner. The order passed by Ld. trial court , in these circumstances, being not sustainable qua petitioner is accordingly set aside and instant revision petition filed by the petitioner is allowed. TCR alongwith copy of this order be sent back to the trial court. Revision file be consigned to record room.