Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

1. By this order I shall be disposing of two Criminal Miscellaneous Petitions 22273-M and 27894-M of 1997 as the matter involved in these petitions is identical in nature.

2. Petitioner has filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for issuing a direction to the respondent 1 to 3 to registar a criminal case against respondents 4 to 7 under Sections 365/367/384/387/506/342/347 read with Section 34 of the Indian Panel Code.

3. Petitioner's contention is that he is son of Surinder Kumar Jain, a deed writer, and Bajrang Lal Surinder Kumar Jain's sister's son, is also a deed writer. On 28-8-1997 Mani Ram son of Mamu Ram came to Bajrang Lal in Tahsil premises, Hansi, as he wanted to purchase stamps of Rs. 20,000/- for getting the sale deed executed and registered. For that purpose, he was to deposit this amount of Rs. 20,000/- with the State Bank of India, Hansi. On the insistance of Mani Ram, Surinder Kumar sent the petitioner with an amount of Rs. 20,000/- given by Mani Ram to deposit the same in the State Bank of India. Petitioner along with Bajrang Lal went to the State Bank of India to deposit the aforesaid amount, but as the Bank employees were on strike, the amount could not be deposited. When the petitioner and Bajrang Lal were coming back, on their way, their Rickshaw went out of order; therefore, they were coming on foot. A Tata Sumo, white colour, without any number plate, stopped near them. Mahendar, Partap, Satbir, Jaibir and four five other persons came out of the vehicle and surrounded the petitioner and Bajrang Lal, they snatched the petitioner's gold chain and an amount of Rs. 20,000/- plus Rs. 70/- from the petitioner's pocket along with challan form. They all forcibly took Bajrang Lal, made him sit in Tata Sumo and left the place. Ravinder Kumar also saw this incident. Petitioner along with Ravinder Kumar came to Surinder Kumar Jain and apprised him of the incident, at 1.45 noon. They searched for Bajrang Lal, but could not trace him. The petitioner sent telegrams to the Prime Minister of India, Home Minister of India, Chief Minister, Haryana, Director General of Police, Haryana, Superintendent of Police, Hisar, Deputy Superintendent of police, Hansi and the Station House Officer, City Hisar, copies of which are Annexure P-1 to P-7. He also filed an application (Annexure P-8) before the Station House Officer of Police Station, Hansi.

6. Respondents 4 to 7 have not filed any reply.

7. In the above back-drop, the synopsis of the prosecution case having an errie profile can be narrated as follows :-

8. When the report (Annexure P-8) was made by the petitioner at the Police Station, Sub-Inspector Rajinder Kumar with alacrity went to the house of Bajrang Lal, who found him there. During arguments, the learned Assistant Advocate General, Haryana, admitted that without registering the offence, an enquiry was conducted by Rajinder Kumar, Sub-Inspector, to find out the truthfulness or otherwise of the allegations made in the complaint (Annexure P-8). He also recorded the statement of Bajrang Lal, Pratap Singh and Mohinder Singh. Mohinder Singh is cited as a witness in the complaint lodged under Section 182 of the Indian Panel Code. Statement of no other witness was recorded. After recording the statements of Mohinder Singh and Pratap Singh and collecting the documentary evidence, Sub-Inspector Rajinder Kumar, came to the conclusion that a false report was lodged with the police, therefore, the complaint under Section 182 of the Indian Panel Code was lodged.

The Apex Court further held :-

"............. Keeping in view the provisions of Section 156(1) of the Code which empowers the police to investigate into a cognizable 'case' and the Rules framed under the Indian Police Act, 1861(i) police is duty bound to formally register a case and then investigate into the same ............"

14. From a plain perusal of the complaint (Annexure P-8), it is evident that information about the cognizable offence was given to the police disclosing the names of the accused persons. To prop up a case against the accused persons. Sub-Inspector Rajinder Kumar, while conducting an enquiry, decided not to record the statements of the complainant or witnesses to be pointed out by him but embarked upon recording the statements of the accused persons Mohinder Singh and Pratap Singh. Thus, this lukewarm and cursory investigation was conducted by the police which became lame from the very beginning. The Court cannot blink at their unlawful act. The Enquiry Officer has dealt deep on the point of enmity between the parties due to some business dealings or contract of sale. It is trite that enmity is double edged weapon as it may provide a motive for crime as also for false implication. It is traversity of justice that in such a case when the allegation was made that the accused persons have snatched gold chain from the petitioner as well Rs. 20,000/- and Rs. 70/- from his pocket along with challan form, no attempt was made by the Enquiry Officer to interrogate the petitioner or to recover these items. The Enquiry Officer arrogated to himself the power to initiate an enquiry without registering the First Information Report in connection with complaint (Annexure P-8) and also to conclude the enquiry and prosecute the complainant and his witnesses under Section 182 of the Indian Panel Code.

19. Hence, in my considered view, respondent No. 3 failed to perform his official duty. Accordingly, petition is hereby allowed. Respondents 1, 2 and 3 are hereby directed to register First Information Report under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on the basis of complaint (Annexure P-8) and then to hold investigation into the said offence.

20. In view of the order passed with regard to Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 22273-M of 1998 Crl. Misc. No. 27894-M of 1997 is also allowed. Calender submitted under Section 182 of the Indian Panel Code against petitioner Bajrang Lal, Devinder Kumar and Surinder Kumar Jain is hereby quashed. Unless, the Station House Officer of Police Station, Hansi makes a thorough investigation into the allegations made in complaint (Annexure P-8) lodged by petitioner Devinder Kumar, it cannot be said that the complainant gave false telegram complaint (Annexure P-8) with an intention to cause public servant to use his lawful power to the injury of these accused persons/respondents. Hence, calender filed under Section 182 of the Indian Panel Code is hereby quashed. Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No, 27894-M of 1998 is also allowed.