Amarjeet Singh vs State of Punjab

M.L. Singhal, J.

This is a petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by Shri Amarjeet Singh whereby he has prayed the quashing of FIR No. 30 dated 31.3.1993 (Annexure P1) registered against him at police station, Talwandi Sabo under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988/Section 342 I.P.C. He has prayed for the quashing of other proceedings taken in connection with that F.I.R.

Shri Amarjeet Singh was Sub Inspector/S.H.O. Police Station, Talwandi Sabo. An application was received against him from one Mithu Singh alias Gurbax Singh son of Dial Singh, Jat, Police Station, Talwandi Sabo, alleging therein that he has taken illegal gratification to the tune of Rs. 4000/, Rs. 2000/, Rs. 21500/, Rs. 2000/, Rs. 7000/, Rs. 2900/, Rs. 3000/ from him, Pritam Singh, Bhag Singh Alha Singh, Nathu Singh, Kaka Singh, Labh Singh and Mangu Singh respectively, in police Station Talwandi Sabo. An enquiry into the application was made by Shri Mokham Singh, Superintendent of Police, Bhatinda. According to his findings Mithu Singh alias Gurbax Singh, Binder Singh son of Mithu Singh, Pritam Singh son of Sarwan Singh, Lachhman Singh son of Sukhdev Singh, residents of Shekhupura had been apprehended by him (SHO), Police Station Talwandi Sabo, a few days prior to that application, i.e. prior to the taking place of Panchayat elections. Shri Amarjeet Singh, S.H.O., Police Station Talwandi Sabo, interrogated them with regard to the possession of Arms and Ammunition. Gurdev Singh son of Mukand Singh who was making an effort to secure their release from the clutches of S.H.O. Amarjeet Singh, met contactman Karam Singh Sarpanch of Ghuman Khurd through one Sohan Lal. Sohan Lal had talk with Amarjeet Singh who demanded Rs. 4000/ in consideration of releasing Mithu Singh etc. from his custody. S.H.O. Amarjeet Singh received Rs. 4000/ as illegal gratification from Gurdev Singh through Karam Singh Sarpanch/Sohan Lal contactman. According to the findings of the enquiry officer, Rs. 4000/ was handed over to S.H.O. Amarjeet Singh, Sarpanch/Sohan Lal his contactman and in consideration thereof they were released. In consideration of release of Pritam Singh Rs. 2000/ was taken. In October, 1992, S.H.O. Amarjeet Singh recovered one pitcher containing lahan lying in the fields of Ahla Singh and Bhag Singh sons of Albel Singh, resident of Shekhupura and took them to Police Station, Talwandi Sabo. He took total amount of Rs. 21500/ on various occasions in Police Station, Talwandi Sabo through Mithu Singh and Mehar Singh in consideration of registering no case against them regarding recovery of the lahan and in consideration of closing the chapter of the recovery of lahan against them. About 5/6 months earlier there was a dispute between Karnail Singh and Avtar Singh residents of Shekhupura. In connection with that dispute Avtar Singh was arrested in Police Station Talwandi Sabo. Dr. Nathu Singh was toiling to secure the release of Avtar Singh. Shri Amarjeet Singh got the matter compromised and took Rs. 2000/ in Police Station Talwandi Sabo through Dr. Nathu Singh. It was illegal gratification in consideration of bringing about compromise between Karnail Singh and Avtar Singh. About 5/6 months ago, Kaka Singh was arrested in Police Station Talwandi Sabo as a suspect of theft in the liquor vend of village Shekhupura. Kaka Singh paid Rs. 2000/ to Amarjit Singh through Mithu Singh and managed to go scot free so far as the said theft case was concerned. About 3 months earlier, Shri Amarjeet Singh arrested Labh Singh son of Mastan Singh for harbouring terrorists. For setting him free he took Rs. 2900/ through Jagdeep Singh. About three months earlier, S.H.O. arrested one Mangu Singh suspect of theft. He took Rs. 3000/ as illegal gratification and allowed him to go scot free. He took this amount through Sukhdev Singh. In all S.H.O. Amarjeet Singh had taken Rs. 42400/ on different occasions from different accused/suspects. Shri Mokham Singh Superintendent of Police, Detective, Bhatinda recorded statements of the witnesses during enquiry and recorded his findings. He sent his findings (enquiry report) to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Bhatinda who ordered the registration of the case against him under the relevant provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act and the I.P.C. In consequence thereof, the aforesaid case was registered against him under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Section 342 I.P.C.

He claims quashing of the F.I.R. averring that he registered several cases against Mithu Singh and others during the course of his posting as S.H.O., Police Station Talwandi Sabo, the details whereof have been set out in para 3 of this petition for quashment. Registration of the case against Mithu Singh annoyed them. They are all tied with each other through partisan feeling. Not having been able to reconcile with the registration of the cases against them, they retaliated and made complaint against him. For prosecuting him, sanction under Section 197 of the Cr.P.C. is required to be taken. Whatever is imputed to him that has been done by him during the discharge of his official duties. The material relied upon is not adequate enough to found the charge. Allegations are vague inasmuch as no date or time of the passing of the illegal gratification is given. Evidence collected is hearsay carrying no evidentiary value. Registration of the case against him is mechanical. Application was received. Statements of a few witnesses were recorded and the findings were given without appreciating them. All the witnesses are of shady character and were of criminal background.

Prayer of Amarjeet Singh has been opposed by the State of Punjab urging that sanction for prosecuting the accused under the provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act, has been obtained from the competent authority. Sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C. is being awaited. Challan will be put up after sanction is received. It is not the case where the petitioner could invoke the extraordinary powers of this court vesting in it under Section 482 Cr.P.C. He will have the full opportunity of trial before the Court. The Court will scan the evidence brought on record.

Section 197 Cr.P.C. reads as follows :

"Prosecution of Judges and public servants : (1) When any person who is or was a Judge or Magistrate or a public servant not removable from his office save by or with the sanction of the Government is accused of any offence alleged to have been committed by him while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty, no Court shall take cognizance of such offence except with the previous sanction

(a) in the case of a person who is employed or, as the case may be, was at the time of commission of the alleged offence employed, in connection with the affairs of the Union, of the Central Government.

(b) in the case of a person who is employed or, as the case may be, was at the time of commission of the alleged offence employed, in connection with the affairs of a State, of the State Government.

(2) No Court shall take cognizance of any offence alleged to have been committed by any member of the Armed Forces of the Union while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty, except with the previous sanction of the Central Government.

(3) The State Government may, by notification, direct that the provisions of subsection (2) shall apply to such class or category of the members of the Forces charged with the maintenance of public order as may be specified therein, wherever they may be serving, and thereupon the provisions of that subsection will apply as if the expression "Central Government" occurring therein, the expression "State Government" were submitted.

(4) The Central Government or the State Government, as the case may be, may determine the person by whom, the manner in which, and the offence or offences for which the prosecution of such Judge, Magistrate or public servant is to be conducted, and may specify the Court before which the trial is to be held."

Section 197 Cr.P.C. is not attracted because it was not part of his duty to demand illegal gratification for doing some favour in the discharge of his official duty and it was not part of his duty to accept illegal gratification in consideration of doing that favour. Provisions of Section 197 Cr.P.C. would be attracted if the commission of the offence was so inextricable connected with the performance of his duty; and that without committing that offence, that duty could not be performed. Failure to investigate the case fairly and squarely is abandonment of his duty by a police officer. If for abandoning that duty he demands illegal gratification and he gets it, he commits an offence which does not fall within the ambit of his official duty. In my opinion, the provisions of Section 197 Cr.P.C. are not attracted so far as this case is concerned. So far as the other point urged by the counsel is concerned, suffice it to so say the case is in the stage of investigation and challan has not been put in and after the case is investigated and challan is put in, the accused can urge before the Special Court constituted under the Prevention of Corruption Act to discharge him saying that without compliance of the provisions of Rule 16.38 of Punjab Police Rules, 1934, no prosecution was competent. Provisions of Section 482 Cr.P.C. are intended to be used only in exceptional circumstances and that too sparingly. There is alternative remedy available under the ordinary law to the petitioner. Extraordinary remedy can be resorted to only in exceptional situations. In this case, there is no such exceptional situation. Whatsoever, the petitioner seeks to urge here, he can urge before the trial court. So, this Criminal Miscellaneous fails and is dismissed.