IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.15524 of 2008 ================================================ Abdus Salam @ Abdul Salam Son of Late Ahmad Hussain, Resident of Village Adhkapariya, P.S. Ramgarhwa, District- East Champaran. .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State of Bihar 2. K. D. Singh (Kapildeo Singh) father’s name not know to the petitioner, Officer-in-Charge, of Ramgarhwa Police Station, District- East Champaran. .... .... Opposite Party/s ======================================================= Appearance :- For the Petitioner/s: - Mr. Khatim Reza, Advocate. For the Opposite Party/s: - Mr. Shashi ShekharDwivedi, Senior Advocate. Mrs. Sangeeta Sharma, Advocate. Mr. Ranjan Kumar Dueby, Advocate. For the State: - Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhaya, A.P.P. ======================================================= CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH ORAL JUDGMENT Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J. Heard Mr. Khatim Reza, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Shashi Shekhar Dwivedi for opposite party no.2 and learned counsel for the State. 2. This application under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code has been filed for quashing the revisional order dated 4.2.2008 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge-cum-F.T.C. 1st, Motihari, East Champaran in Criminal Revision No. 44 of 2007 by which the order dated 16.1.2007 passed by the S.D.J.M., Raxaul, East Champaran dismissing the Complaint Case No. 213 of 2006 filed by the petitioner 2 has been affirmed. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner while assailing the impugned order states that the petitioner had filed a complaint case in which it was alleged that opposite party no. 2 who was at the relevant time Officer- in-charge of Ramgarhwa Police Station alongwith 5-6 unknown persons and policemen came to his house at 6 P.M. on 8.8.2006 when the petitioner alongwith his wife was away at Bettiah and in their absence the accused persons who were in civil dress had forcibly entered in his house and also after assaulting the inmates threatened them with his service revolver and looted the house belongings which are described in the complaint petition amounting to Rs. 2,00,000/-. It is further the case in the complaint petition that no receipt for the looted articles were given and they were taken away forcibly. The reason mentioned is that the accused no. 1, that is O.P. No. 2 in the present case, had immoral intentions with regard to the wife and major daughters of the complainant and due to him being asked not to visit the house, he has taken it otherwise and also threatened to teach the complainant and his family a lesson. The Court below examined the complainant on solemn affirmation on 14.8.2006 which was followed by deposition by three other witnesses during the course of 3 inquiry under Section 202 of the Cr.P.C. on 11.9.2006 and 3.11.2006. It is submitted that the deposition of the complainant and the three witnesses clearly went to prove that the accused had committed offences punishable under Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 27 of the Arms Act. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner assailing the order impugned submits that the original order dated 16.1.2007 shall reveal that the Magistrate illegally after examining the complainant and three witnesses had called for a report from the same person who was the accused, that is, the Officer-in-charge of Ramgarhwa P.S. and based on his report as well as a report of the Mukhiya concerned had taken into account the possible defence of the accused and also taken note of the same and held that prima facie no offence was made out under Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code. Accordingly, the complaint petition was dismissed under Section 203 of the Cr.P.C. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner points out that even going by the factual aspect, that is, the defence as considered by the original Court is not tenable both on facts as well as in law for the reason that it is admitted that the police party went to the house of the complainant and also took away certain materials but the 4 explanation and justification for the same is based upon the order for attachment passed against the brother-in- law (Sala) of the complainant in another case. He submits that in view of the admitted position that the house which was ransacked did not belong to the brother- in-law of the complainant but to the complainant, which the official records also disclose, the accused especially O.P. No. 2 could not have come to the house of the complainant under the purported exercise of power in execution of the warrant of attachment against the brother-in-law of the complainant in another case. He submits that opposite party no. 2 was not acting in the capacity of the Investigating Officer and making independent enquiry into the case which could have given some semblance of justification since even according to the opposite party no. 2 the land belonged to the complainant but actually the house was built by and used by the said brother-in-law of the complainant. However the same is a mere presumption and has no legal justification. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the opposite party no. 2 could not have acted on this presumption and executed warrant of attachment without there being unimpeachable proof, as per the officials records, that the house belonged to the brother-in-law of 5 the complainant and not the complainant. In the absence of the same and rather there being enough documentary evidence to show that the house which was raided belonged to the complainant, the action of the opposite party no. 2 and other accused cannot be justified in any manner in the eyes of law and this amounts to a pure criminal act on their part for which they are liable to be proceeded against in law like any other citizen of the land. In support of his contention he points out to the order of attachment issued by the Court against the brother-in-law of the complainant which goes to show that there is absolutely no specific description of the property of the brother-in-law of the complainant, much less the house of the complainant which was raided, and in this view of the matter it is submitted that the action of opposite party no. 2 and other police personnel was a clear cut act of arbitrariness and highhandness and also colorable exercise and abuse of their power and privilege. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has summarized his arguments basically to two points. The first one being that whether the person who is himself the named accused can be called upon to give a report with regard to his own conduct and that, too, when evidence has been recorded during the enquiry under Section 202 of Cr.P.C., and secondly whether the defence of the 6 accused can be looked into and relied upon by the Court concerned before it takes cognizance of the offence. 8. He submits that on both the counts the order cannot be sustained because this illegality has been committed by the original Court and which is not in accordance with law either in light of the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code or the law otherwise. Learned counsel has also relied upon a decision of this Court in the case of Rajeshwar Yadav Vs. The State of Bihar and Ors. reported in 2004 (2) PLJR 699 especially paragraph no. 15 of the same in which this Court in similar circumstances has held the act of the Magistrate as improper exercise of discretion in the matter. The Chief Judicial Magistrate in the said case had called for a report from the D.I.G. of Police when the Superintendent of Police himself was an accused. The Court also held that it was well settled that the complaint against the police should be handled with great care and caution. There should not be an order of investigation by the police and in such case the enquiry should be conducted by the Magistrate himself. 9. Learned counsel draws the attention of this Court to the facts of the said case and submits that in the present case where the enquiry has already been concluded in as much as the Magistrate has examined on 7 Solemn Affirmation and also three other witnesses in support of the complaint petition and taking into account all this there was enough and sufficient materials for the Court to decide on the question of taking cognizance which has wrongly not been done and a report was called for from the officer-in-charge of the concerned Police Station who was himself the accused in the complaint. 10. Learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 on the other hand states that Section 202 read with Section 190 of the Cr. P.C. clearly gives the right to the Magistrate to make an enquiry in the manner as deemed fit by him. He submits that in the present case for verification and for his satisfaction and to arrive at the truth the Magistrate had called for a report and neither such report nor the Magistrate could be faulted for adopting this procedure. He further submits that the report was called from the police and not the accused though it may be co-incidental that the person from whom the report was called for was also the officer- in- charge of the police station from which such report was called. 11. Learned counsel tried to distinguish the case of Rajeshwar Yadav (Supra) stating that it was a case where the allegation was directly against the Superintendent of Police and in such background this 8 Court has held that it was not proper to call for a report from the Deputy Inspector General of Police who sent his report based on the explanation of the Superintendent of Police himself. He submits that in present case the report was called from the Police per se and not from the accused individual who may be the accused also. Learned counsel for the State has also defended the impugned order. 12. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court feels that the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is well founded. The Magistrate has wrongly proceeded to ask for a report from the same person who was himself an accused in the complaint and has not only done so but also relied upon such report and has gone further by taking into account and relying upon the materials which were not before him in the complaint or in the police report and in fact had come from a third party, that is, the Mukhiya concerned. He has wrongly done a mini trial and gone into the merits and decided the case of the complainant while dismissing the complaint petition itself. It is obvious from the order of attachment which is the mainstay of the defence of opposite party no. 2, that the same has been passed with regard to another person, may be the brother-in-law of the complainant, but admittedly as per the official records the house which 9 came to be raided and from where the articles were taken away did not belong to the said brother-in-law of the complainant and stood in the name of the complainant. Opposite party no. 2 has acted highhandedly and exceeded his brief and jurisdiction while purportedly executing such warrant of attachment even if the same is taken to be actually what had happened. 13. The contention of learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 that Section 202 read with Section 190 of the Cr. P.C. gives the right to the Magistrate concerned to hold an enquiry and then take cognizance, upon information received from any person other than the police officer or upon his own knowledge, is misplaced and erroneous in the facts and circumstances of the present case. No doubt Section 202 of Cr.P.C. gives power to the Magistrate to conduct an enquiry and take evidence on oath which in the present case the Court has already done by examining the complainant on solemn affirmation and also three other witnesses in support of the complaint petition and thus there was no occasion for the Magistrate either to call for any further report prior to deciding on the point of cognizance or taking into account materials which may be available to the accused by way of defence, if at all cognizance was taken and the matter proceeded on merits during trial. Even reliance of Section 10 190 of the Cr.P.C. is misplaced for the reason that it relates to cognizance of offence by Magistrate and as per Section 190 (1) (C) the Magistrate may take cognizance of any offence upon information received from any person other than a police officer or upon his own knowledge that such offence has been committed. This Section does not relate to dismissing the complaint petition. The complaint petition was dismissed under Section 203 of the Cr. P.C. The dismissal of the complaint is only after considering the statement on oath of the complainant and the witnesses as a result of the enquiry or investigation under Section 202. 14. In the present case, the Court finds that the Magistrate has travelled beyond his jurisdiction and the power given to him under the Criminal Procedure Code while dismissing the complaint petition for the reasons that he has gone into the defence which could have been available to the accused and for which the complainant was never given any opportunity to rebut or prove otherwise. This Court is also of the opinion that the ratio of the decision rendered in the case of Rajeshwar Yadav (Supra) applies to the present case. 15. For the reasons discussed above, this application stands allowed. The order impugned dated 4.2.2008 passed by the learned Additional District and 11 Sessions Judge-cum-F.T.C. 1, Motihari, East Champaran in Criminal Revision No.44 of 2007 as well as the order dated 16.1.2007 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Raxaul, East Champaran in Complaint Case No. 213 of 2006 are hereby quashed. 16. The Magistrate shall proceed afresh from the stage of Section 190 of the Cr. P.C. in accordance with law. Patna High Court Dated 7th December, 2011 Anand Kr./ A.F.R. (Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J.)