IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA Cr.M.M.O. No.33 of 2009. Date of decision:25.08.2010 Dr.Tej Partap … …Petitioner Versus State of H.P. … …Respondent Coram The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Dev Darshan Sud,J. Whether approved for reporting ?1 No. For the Petitioner: Mr.Shrawan Dogra, Advocate. For the Respondent: Ms.Ruma Kaushik, Additional Advocate General. Dev Darshan Sud,J. This petition has been preferred by the petitioner herein against the order Annexure P-1, dated 16.3.2009, passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kangra at Dharamshala, directing the Station House Officer, Palampur to ensure that he will submit weekly report of the investigation every month to the Court till the challan is not filed before the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Palampur, investigation be completed without undue delay and further that the report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. be submitted under intimation to the Court. 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgement? Yes. 2 2. In a nutshell, the order includes the narration made in FIR No.66, dated 2.3.2009, registered under Section 354 IPC by the Police Station, Palampur. According to the learned Court, record had been produced by the Station House Officer who stated that since the matter was not reported to the police, therefore, no FIR was registered, but according to the newspaper report dated 25th February, 2009, which appeared in `The Tribune’, the Superintendent of Police, Kangra at Dharamshala found that prima facie a case under Section 354 IPC was made out against the accused, but the complainant has declined to pursue the case. He called for the record from the Vice Chancellor of the Palampur Agriculture University, which, according to him, disclosed that a written complaint was received by the Vice Chancellor on 18.11.2008 and subsequent complaint was made on 3.2.2009, but no action was taken by him, which according to him was because of the his attitude. The order then continues in a pontificatory manner deprecating the action of the Vice Chancellor in the strongest words. He then issued two directions:- “1. The Vice-Chancellor through the Registry of the University shall ensure that the copy of this order is circulated amongst the girl students of the hostels, and the wardens of the hostel shall ensure that the copy of the order is 3 displayed on the notice board of the hostel and copy may also be provided to the Perfect to the hostels. The girl student shall also be intimated (whether day scholars or boarding) by the Registrar by any means that if they have any complaint of criminal mis- behaviour by any authority of the University or other students or staff, they shall be free to report the matter directly by sending the complaint to any police authority or by sending the same to the court and they need not refer the matter to the Vice-Chancellor. 2. The Vice-Chancellor shall file the compliance report in this regard of the above action taken, in this court within seven days of the receipt of this order.” 3. The Court refers to the decision of the Supreme Court in Lalita Kumari vs. Govt.of U.P., Writ Petition (CRL) No.68 of 2008, to hold that the Police Authorities have no option, but to register the FIR when a cognizable case is reported, failing which, the Court has to initiate action against the erring police officials. A direction was issued by the Court to the Superintendent of Police, Kangra at Dharamshala, to circulate the copy of the order to all the Police 4 Stations under his jurisdiction in Kangra District for strict compliance in future. 4. This order was sent to the Vice Chancellor by the Superintendent of the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kangra at Dharamshala with the direction that the directions as contained in Annexure P-1 be complied with. It is the jurisdiction of the Magistrate and the manner in which he has acted, in the present case, which has been challenged before this Court. 5. I have heard Shri Shrawan Dogra, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Advocate General for the State. 6. I must express my anguish and consternation to the manner in which the learned Court has acted. The zeal for enforcement of law had to be kept within the confines of jurisdiction conferred by law. The Court does not exercise omnibus jurisdiction to pass orders in any manner which pleases it. The powers having been clearly defined by the Code of Criminal Procedure, directing as to how the Magistracy/ Court or the Police have to act. 7. I have no doubt in my mind that the Vice Chancellor who is the Head of the Institution would have instituted appropriate action in accordance with law to install corrective measures/institute proceedings against the offenders/initiate disciplinary action in accordance with law following the directions 5 of the Supreme Court. But, surely, the Magistrate does not exercise powers under Article 226 to act in the manner in which he has done so, having condemned the Vice Chancellor unheard and assumed the powers of superintendence of not only the investigation in the Criminal Case but also the action/inaction of the Vice Chancellor. The power of each of the Court should be exercised as provided in the statute and as determined by precedents. I am unable to persuade myself that in the present case, the two observations made in the order are justified in law. The circumstances under which the order was passed cannot be sustained. I, therefore, hold that the order, Annexure P-1, to the extent it condemned the Vice Chancellor and directions issued in this regard, are without jurisdiction and are directed to be taken off from the record. Needless to say and add that the judgment follows only the facts which are presented before the Court and any comments etc. which have been made against a person who is not a party in the proceedings and on the material which has not been tested for its authenticity cannot be sustained. Mere sentiments and anguish cannot be made basis for condemnation. I need not say more. 8. In these circumstances, I allow this petition. The portion of the order Annexure P-1, so far as it condemns the petitioner herein and directs him, is quashed and set aside. Second prayer made in the petition is infructuous since the Presiding Officer 6 has been deleted by order of this Court dated 4.5.2009. It is ordered accordingly. 9. If any case(s) have been registered by the Police against the offenders with respect to the initiation of criminal proceedings, this judgment has no bearing on the merits of the case. August 25, 2010. (Dev Darshan Sud) (aks) Judge.