Charanjit Singh vs State of Punjab

K.K. Srivastava, J.

This is a petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. praying for issuance of a direction to respondents 1 to 3 i.e. State of Punjab, Deputy Superintendent of Police (D), Addl. D.S.P., Garshankar and S. Didar Singh, Inspector, Police Station Garshankar, to register a criminal case on the basis of a complaint dated 27.6.997 and to investigate the same in accordance with law and proceed against the accused respondents 4 to 9, namely, Balbir Singh, Parshotam Singh, Rajinder Singh, Teja Singh, Ranjodh Singh, Tarsem Singh, all residents of village Fatehpur Khurd, Tehsil Garshankar, District Hoshiarpur.

The petitioner, Charanjit Singh lodged a complaint dated 27.6.1997, copy Annexure P4, addressed to respondent No. 2, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Garshankar alleging that the accused aforesaid threatened him on 25.6.1997 that they will forcibly take possession of the land comprising of 3 kilas which had been in possession of the sons of Sardar Gurbax Singh, retired Deputy Superintendent of Police and Sarpanch of Village Fatehpur Khurd, namely, Ranjit Singh and Amarjeet Singh. The aforesaid sons of S. Gurbax Singh were presently residing in Canada and on their behalf the present petitioner, Charanjit Singh S/o Shri Balwant Singh was looking after the land as general power of attorney holder from Ranjit Singh and Amarjeet Singh. A civil suit was also filed by Ranjit Singh and Amarjeet Singh aforesaid through their general power of attorney holder, the petitioner, Charanjit Singh against Teja Singh, Ajit Singh, Chanan Singh, Parshotam Singh and Balbir Singh in the Court of Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Garshankar, copy of plaint Annexure P1, on 26.6.1997 praying a decree for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering in the lawful and peaceful possession of the plaintiffs in the land measuring 45 kilas, 13 marlas bearing Khata Nos. 5//25/2, 10//5, 10//5, 4//20/2, 21, 22, 23, 11//1/1, 2/2, 8/1, 2/3, 22//3/3 and 3/1 situated in village Fatehpur Khurd aforesaid. The Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Division) Garshankar passed adinterim injunction on the application of the plaintiffpetitioner moved under JUDGMENT 39 Rules 1 and 2 C.P.C. vide order dated 26.6.1997, copy Annexure P2, and notice in this regard was issued to the defendants aforesaid vide, copy annexure P3. The report of the process server is also appended at internal page 2 of Annexure P3 showing that the defendants had refused to receive the summons and copy of the notices and the same have been affixed on their place of residence. Two of the defendants Parshotam Singh and Balbir Singh were, however, not found present at their given address. Later on Balbir Singh also refused to accept notice on 26.7.1997. It has been contended that the accused aforesaid were in the process of destroying the standing crop in the land in dispute when they were refrained from doing so by the police officials. The petitioner suffered damages to the tune of Rs. 40,000/. No action was, however, taken on the report of the petitioner by the police. Hence, this petition has been filed.

Notice was issued to the respondents 1 to 9. Separate reply was filed by respondents 4 to 9 and by respondents 1 to 3. Respondent No. 3, the Inspector, Police Station Garshankar denied the averments made in the petition for want of knowledge. It was, however, admitted that Sardar Gurbax Singh had died on 15.1.1995. It was mentioned that the land in dispute was in possession of the Gram Panchayat and was purchased for school by late Sardar Gurbax Singh and mutation has been sanctioned in favour of the school by the SDO (Civil), Garshankar on 23.6.1997. It was admitted that the complaint dated 27.6.1997 was moved before DSP, Garshankar which was marked for enquiry to respondent No. 3, ASI, Kashmira Singh with a direction to take necessary action. Kashmira Singh enquired into the complaint and submitted the report to the fact that the land in dispute was purchased by Sardar Gurbax Singh for Kabul Singh Memorial High School Fatehpur Khurd. The land was being cultivated by the petitioner being nephew of the wife of Gurbax Singh because of the reason that Amarjit Singh and Ranjit Singh sons of Gurbax Singh, both sons gave their power of attorney to Charanjit Singh, petitioner. As per the jamabandi for the year 199293 Gram Panchayat of village Fatehpur Khurd was shown as owner of the land in dispute and Gurbax Singh as cultivator. Before the mutation was sanctioned in the name of Amarjit Singh and Ranjit Singh, Gram Panchayat had filed a complaint regarding the mutation before Sub Divisional Magistrate, Garshankar who vide his order dated 23.6.1997 sanctioned the mutation of 38 kanals 19 marlas in the name of Kabul Singh Memorial High School Fatehpur Khurd and the remaining land was shown as owned by Amarjit Singh and Ranjit Singh. The panchayat of the village Fatehpur Khurd took possession of the 38 kanal 19 marlas as per the order of Sub Divisional Magistrate, Garshankar. The filing of the civil suit was admitted and issuance of an order of ad interim injunction was also admitted. It was submitted that Balbir Singh, Sarpanch, respondent No. 4 and others had moved an application to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Hoshiarpur on 29.7.1997 contending that Charanjit Singh, petitioner wanted to take forcible possession of the land of the School. That application was marked to Deputy Superintendent of Police, Garshankar. Shri Randhir Singh, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Detective, Hoshiarpur was incharge of the office of the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Garshankar and he enquired into the matter. In the enquiry the same facts came into light as were found by ASI Kashmira Singh. Since the matter was sub judice offence, no action was initiated on this application. Respondent No. 2, took the same plea as is contained in the reply of respondent No. 3. Respondent No. 1 has also reiterated the stand taken in the reply of respondent No. 3. The private respondents 4 to 9 contended that Gurbax Singh was owner of only 7 kanals 9 marlas situated in village Fatehpur Khurd.

He was in the management of Kabul Singh Canadian Memorial Govt. High School. In that capacity he had purchased the land on behalf of Kabul Singh Canadian Memorial School. In the revenue record, Gurbax Singh was shown in possession on behalf of Kabul Singh Canadian Memorial School on an area of 38 kanals 19 marlas. It was denied that Gurbax Singh was owner of total land measuring 45 kanals 13 marlas and in lawful possession of the same. It was admitted that Gurbax Singh had died on 15.1.1995. The execution of a registered Will dated 8.11.1993 in favour of Amarjit Singh and Ranjit Singh by their father Gurbax Singh was denied for want of knowledge. It was mentioned that Amarjit Singh and Ranjit Singh could succeed to only that much property of their late father Gurbax Singh which was held by him as owner and as such Amarjit Singh and Ranjit Singh became owner of only 7 kanals and 9 marlas of land. The mutation of land was sanctioned by the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Garshankar on 23.6.1997 by transferring only 7 kanals 9 marlas of land in favour of Amarjit Singh and Ranjit Singh and the remaining land measuring 38 kanals 19 marlas was sanctioned in favour of Kabul Singh Canadian Memorial School. It was not disputed that the petitioner was appointed as the general power of attorney by Amrjit Singh and Ranjit Singh, sons of Sardar Gurbax Singh. It was specifically denied that the private respondents 4 to 9 had taken possession by illegal means of the land in dispute and destroyed the standing crop. It was reiterated that the school was already in possession of 38 kanals 9 marlas. The local police, it has been urged, enquired into the matter and found no substance in the complaint of the petitioner and consequently the report was not noted at all.

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned State counsel representing respondents 1 to 3 and the learned counsel for the private respondents 4 to 9.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that once the petitioner had shown commission of cognizable offence by respondents 4 to 9, respondents 2 and 3 were required by the provisions of Section 154 Cr.P.C. to register the FIR and investigate the same in accordance with law. The learned counsel appearing for the private respondents as well as the learned DAG appearing for respondents 1 to 3 argued that since the dispute regarding the land was subjudice before a civil court, the matter regarding the taking of forcible possession of the land or causing damage to the standing crop could not be investigated or enquired into by registration of the FIR. Mr. T.P.S. Mann, learned counsel for respondents 4 to 9 has also contended that the action of the police (respondents 2 and 3) in not registering the FIR could not be held to be contrary to law.

The matter regarding the nonregistration of the FIR by the police upon the complaint of an aggrieved person who had alleged the commission of cognizable offences against the accused and remedy available to such an aggrieved person came up for consideration before the Hon''ble Apex Court in the case of All India Institute of Medical Sciences Employees Union v. Union of India, 1997(4) RCR (Criminal) 594, wherein it was held as under :

"When the information is laid with the police but no action in that behalf was taken, the complainant is given power under Section 190 read with Section 200 of the Code to lay the complaint before the Magistrate having jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offence and the Magistrate is required to inquire into the complaint as provided in Chapter XV of the Code. In case the Magistrate after recording evidence finds prima facie case, instead of issuing process to the accused, he is empowered to direct the concerned police to investigate into the offence under Chapter XII of the Code and to submit a report. If he finds that the complaint does not disclose any offence to take further action, he is empowered to dismiss the complaint under Section 203 of the Code. In case he finds that the complaint/evidence recorded prima facie discloses an offence, he is empowered to take cognizance of the offence and would issue process to the accused."

It will appear that the person who is aggrieved by the nonregistration of the FIR has an alternative remedy of filing a criminal complaint before the Illaqa Magistrate who is competent authority to deal with the same himself or send it for investigation to the concerned police officer under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. The Hon''ble Supreme Court held in the case of Madhu Bala v. Suresh Kumar, 1997(3) RCR (Criminal) 679 as under :

"From the foregoing discussion it is evident that whenever a Magistrate directs an investigation on a complaint the police has to register a cognizable case on that complaint treating the same as the FIR and comply with the requirements of the above Rules. It, therefore, passes our comprehension as to how the direction of a Magistrate asking the police to register a case makes an order of investigation under Section 156(3) legally unsustainable. Indeed, even if a Magistrate does not pass a direction to register a case, still in view of 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 it (the police) is duty bound to formally register a case and then investigate into the same. The provisions of the Code, therefore, do not in any way stand in the way of a Magistrate to direct the police to register a case at the police station and then investigate into the same. In our opinion when an order for investigation under Section 156(3) of the Code is to be made the proper direction to the police would be to register a case at the police station treating the complaint as the First Information Report and investigate into the same."

In the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner has an alternative and efficacious remedy and as such it will not be appropriate to issue a direction to the police authorities (respondents 2 and 3) who have already enquired into the matter and came to a tentative finding regarding the allegations made in the complaint. The petitioner is relegated to avail the alternative remedy of filing a criminal complaint before the concerned Illaqa Magistrate who shall deal with the same expeditiously and preferably within a month of the filing of the complaint in accordance with law.

The petition is disposed of accordingly.