CRM No.M-7093 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM No.M-7093 of 2009 Date of Decision:25.10.2010 Kehar Singh ......Petitioner Versus State of Punjab .....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR. Present: Mr.Sarjit Singh, Senior Advocate, with Mr.Vikas Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Shilesh Gupta, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab. **** M EHINDER S INGH S ULLAR , J.(oral) The compendium of the facts, culminating in the commencement, relevant for disposal of the present petition and emanating from the record, is that, complainant-Kehar Singh son of Teja Singh claimed that on 08.10.2006, he was going in his Zen car bearing registration No.PB-11V/4030, being driven by his driver, towards Bus Stand, Patiala. At about 6.30 PM, as soon as, his car crossed the red lights of Patiala-Rajpura Road, near Sirhindi Gate, Patiala, in the meantime, accused-Bhupinder Singh signalled to stop the car. Thereafter, accused- Rajinder Singh and Harbinder Singh also suddenly appeared there. Bhupinder Singh was stated to be armed with a knife, whereas other accused Rajinder Singh and Harbinder Singh were armed with sticks. The petitioner claimed that then Rajinder Singh gave a stick blow on his right shoulder, while accused Bhupinder Singh gave a knife blow on his right arm. The third accused gave fist blows to the petitioner and dragged him. The other accused, namely, Savinder Singh and Arvinder Singh were standing near the car to help the accused. The clothes of the petitioner were torn and blood started oozing out of the knife wound profusely. CRM No.M-7093 of 2009 2 Thereafter, the complainant was admitted and medico legally examined in Rajindra Hospital, Patiala. 2. Levelling a variety of allegations and narrating the sequence of events in all according to the petitioner, the accused caused injuries to him with their respective weapons, in the manner indicated here-in-above. Complainant- Kehar Singh reported the matter to the police, wherein his statement was recorded by virtue of DDR No.29 dated 09.10.2006, by the police of Police Station Division No.4, Patiala, on the same day. 3. During the course of investigation, the police found the information given by the petitioner to be false vide report dated 04.11.2006(Annexure P-1)and initiated the proceedings under Section 182 IPC against him in this behalf. 4. The petitioner did not feel satisfied with the investigation of the police, report(Annexure P-1) and filed a private complaint against the accused. The Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Patiala, after taking into consideration the preliminary evidence, summoned the accused to face the trial, for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 323, 324, 506 and 120-B IPC, by virtue of summoning order dated 09.04.2007(Annexure P-2). 5. Above being the position, now the petitioner has filed the present petition for quashing the criminal proceedings under Section 182 IPC initiated against him and all subsequent proceedings arising thereto, invoking the provisions of Section 482 Cr.P.C. That is how, I am seized of the matter. 6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, having gone through the record with their valuable help and after bestowal of thoughts over the entire matter, to my mind, the instant petition deserves to be accepted in this relevant context. 7. As is evident from the record that the police initiated criminal proceedings against the petitioner, as envisaged under Section 182 IPC, on the basis of report(Annexure P-1) prepared by the investigating officer. The perusal of CRM No.M-7093 of 2009 3 the police report would reveal that the main grounds, which appear to have been weighed and the investigating officer, inter alia, recorded the following reasons in this relevant behalf that: (i) As no cogent evidence was found about the incident, Head Constable contacted the doctor, who medico legally examined the complainant and mentioned two injuries on the person of the petitioner, (ii) Injury No.1 was with blunt weapon and X-Ray was recommended, while injury No.2 was with a sharp-edged weapon, which do not tally with the version given by the petitioner, (iii) the doctor opined that POSIRLITS OF INJURY NO.2 TO RESELF SUBBERED cannot be ruled out, (iv) the petitioner gave an application to the Incharge, Division No.4, Patiala, to change the inquiry, (v) the investigating officer recorded the statements of both the parties, where statement of the petitioner was somewhat contradictory, (vi) petitioner-Kehar Singh did not give any satisfactory answer at the spot, (vii) the ocular version as projected by the petitioner is somewhat contradictory with the medical evidence, (viii) the petitioner was directed to appear in the police station at 11 o'clock on 25.10.2006, but he came at 12.30 PM and his statement could not be recorded as the police officer was required to attend the cremation of Freedom Fighter Shri Sujan Singh, when he came back, the petitioner and his witnesses were not present in the police station, (ix) on 30.10.2006, the petitioner came to the police station along with his witnesses and made the statements, (x) according to the investigating officer, some discrepancies were noticed in their statements relatable to the place of occurrence and medical evidence and (xi) not only that, the investigating officer decided and accepted the plea of alibi of the accused, as according to him, the accused were not present at the spot at relevant time of occurrence. 8. In this manner, while appreciating the minor discrepancies in the evidence, the investigating officer prepared the report(Annexure P-1) and initiated the criminal proceedings under Section 182 IPC against the petitioner, which postulates that “Whoever gives to any public servant any information which he CRM No.M-7093 of 2009 4 knows or believes to be false, intending thereby to cause, or knowing it to be likely that he will thereby cause, such public servant--(a) to do or omit anything which such public servant ought not to do or omit if the true state of facts respecting which such information is given were known by him, or (b) to use the lawful power of such public servant to the injury or annoyance of any person, shall be punished under this Section. A co-joint reading of this provision would reveal that knowledge or belief that the information is to be false by the petitioner, is a condition precedent for initiation of these proceedings, which are totally lacking in the present case. 9. Having regard to the rival contentions of the learned counsel for the parties, to my mind, the investigating officer exceeded his jurisdiction of investigation, as contemplated under Chapter XII Cr.P.C., which deals with the receipt of information by the police and their power to investigate a criminal case. He fell in legal error in assuming the function of the court in minutely appreciating the evidence in this relevant connection. According to Section 154 Cr.P.C., as soon as, the police officer received the information of a cognizable case, he has to reduce the same into writing, after obtaining the signatures of the complainant in token of its correctness. 10. Sequelly, Section 169 Cr.P.C. escalates that if, upon an investigation under this Chapter, it appears to the officer In-charge of the police station that there is not sufficient evidence or reasonable ground of suspicion to justify the forwarding of the accused to a Magistrate, such officer shall, if such person is in custody, release him on his executing a bond, with or without sureties, as such officer may direct, to appear, if and when so required, before a Magistrate empowered to take cognizance of the offence on a police report and to try the accused or commit him for trial. 11. Likewise, Section 170 Cr.P.C. further envisaged that if, upon an investigation under this Chapter, it appears to the officer in charge of the police CRM No.M-7093 of 2009 5 station that there is sufficient evidence or reasonable ground as aforesaid, such officer shall forward the accused under custody to a Magistrate empowered to take cognizance of the offence upon a police report and to try the accused or commit him for trial, or, if the offence is bailable and the accused is able to give security, shall take security from him for his appearance before such Magistrate on a day fixed and for his attendance from day to day before such Magistrate until otherwise directed. 12. Meaning thereby, the police officer has a very limited role of investigation and did not have the jurisdiction to minutely appreciate the evidence of the complainant and to decide and accept the plea of alibi etc. of the accused as has been, so recorded by the investigating officer in the instant case. He was legally required to complete the investigation and as soon as it is completed, it was his legal duty to forward to the Magistrate a report to empower to take cognizance of the offence on a police report, a final police report in the form prescribed by the State Government. It was his statutory duty to investigate the case under Chapter XII Cr.P.C. in general and to act accordingly to comply with the provisions of Sections 169 and 170 Cr.P.C. in particular and not otherwise. 13. Such, thus, being the legal position, to me, the police officer appears to have exceeded his statutory investigational jurisdiction and illegally assumed the role of a criminal Court in minutely appreciating the evidence, coming to the conclusion that there are certain discrepancies relatable to the medical evidence and place of occurrence in the statements of the witnesses, to decide and accept the plea of alibi of the accused and to prosecute the petitioner, as enshrined under Section 182 IPC. Thus, the very initiation of criminal proceedings under Section 182 IPC against the petitioner by the investigating officer on the basis of such illegal, nonest and without jurisdiction report(Annexure P-1) is nothing, but a sheer abuse of process of law, cannot legally be permitted to continue and is liable to be quashed in this relevant behalf. CRM No.M-7093 of 2009 6 14. There is another aspect of the matter which can be viewed from a different angle. It is not a matter of dispute that the petitioner has already filed a complaint in regard to the same incident and after taking into consideration the preliminary evidence, the trial Magistrate has summoned the accused vide summoning order(Annexure P-2). That means, the subject matter of the case is subjudiced and the trial Magistrate is seized of the matter, relatable to truth or otherwise of the version projected by the petitioner in this context. In that eventuality, the proceedings under Section 182 IPC are not legally maintainable. 15. An identical question arose before this Court in case Ramesh Chand Versus State of Haryana, 2006(4) RCR(Criminal) 718. Having considered the matter deeply, it was ruled that once the petitioner has filed a private complaint and the accused have been summoned, then it cannot be said that the information supplied by the petitioner was false. Therefore, the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner that in view of the pendency of complaint and summoning order in respect of the same offence, the proceedings under Section 182 IPC against the petitioner cannot be permitted to continue, has considerable force and the contrary arguments of the learned State Counsel 'stricto sensu' deserve to be and are hereby repelled under the present set of circumstances. The observations in the aforesaid judgment “mutatis-mutandis” are applicable to the facts and circumstances of this case and are the complete answer to the problem in hand. 16. In the light of aforesaid reasons and without commenting further anything on merits, lest it may prejudice the case of either side during the course of trial of complaint case, the instant petition is hereby accepted. The initiation of proceedings under Section 182 IPC vide report(Annexure P-1) and all subsequent proceedings arising thereto are hereby quashed, being gross and sheer misuse of process of law, in the obtaining circumstances of the case. CRM No.M-7093 of 2009 7 17. Needless to state that, nothing observed here-in-above, would reflect, in any manner on merits of the case, as the same has been so recorded for a limited purpose of deciding the instant controversy under Section 182 IPC. October 25, 2010 (MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR) seema JUDGE