Dilbag Singh Poonia vs Director General of Police, Haryana

K.K. Srivastava, J.

The petitioner Dilbagh Singh Poonia son of Dharam Singh Poonia, resident of Hanuman Nagar, Nai Sabzi Mandi Road, Jind, has filed this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., praying for issuance of a direction to respondent No. 2/SHO, Police Station City Jind to register FIR in respect of an occurrence described in the petition dated 14.6.1997 (copy Annexure P1), addressed to the Hon''ble Chief Justice of this Court and for investigation of the case and to take action against respondents No. 3 to 5, namely Sukhdarshan Singh, son of Fateh Singh, resident of Village Mihon, district Patiala; SI Sher Gir, Police Station Civil Lines, (PP Tripuri), Patiala and ASI Pritam Singh, Police Station Civil Lines, (PP Tripuri), Patiala. The incident is said to have taken place on 8.6.1997, which happened to be the birthday of the son of the petitioner. Respondents No. 3 to 5 came to the house of the petitioner in a Maruti car (registration No. HNX 8686), called the petitioner to apprise about registration of FIR No. 93 dated 7.6.1997 under Sections 406, 420 IPC and that they had come to arrest the petitioner in the said FIR case. The petitioner asked the aforesaid respondents to go and inform the local police of police station Jind, as they had not earlier informed and then to come to his house. Respondent No. 4, SI Sher Gir accompanied by Sukhdarshan Singh and ASI Pritam Singh left for police station City Jind and returned to the house of the petitioner after some time. ASI Laxman Singh and a Havaldar came alongwith respondents No. 3 to 5 and took the petitioner to police station Jind, where he was produced before SI Subhash Bishnoi, who asked the petitioner to accompany respondent No. 4, SI Sher Gir. The latter made an entry in the Roznamcha about the arrest of the petitioner. The petitioner was taken into custody by the SHO, Police station Civil Lines, PP Tripuri, Patiala in connection with the aforesaid FIR. He was, however, not produced before any Magistrate for a period of five days during which he was detained at the aforesaid police post. In the meantime, Mohinder Pal son of Daulat Ram, brotherinlaw of the petitioner moved an application before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patiala, for production of the petitioner in the court. The police station Civil Lines sent a report to the court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate that the petitioner was not arrested by the police of police station Civil Lines, police post Tripuri, Patiala. It has been alleged by the petitioner that during the period of his illegal detention, he was forced by respondent No. 4/SI Sher Gir to execute three blank pronotes. First pronote was got executed in favour of Balkar Singh son of Gurnam Singh for a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/ dated 24.4.1997. The second pronote was got executed in favour of Sukhdarshan Singh of a sum of Rs. 1,10,000/ and the third pronote in favour of Hakam Singh son of Surjit Singh for a sum of Rs. 1,10,000/. It is further alleged that no copy of the pronote was given to the petitioner and only a written chit in Punjabi was given to him. The petitioner did not know the persons in whose favour the aforesaid pronotes were got executed. During this period, it is alleged, a compromisedeed was also got prepared to the effect that on 30.6.1997 the petitioner would pay a sum of Rs. 2,20,000/ in cash and balance amount would be paid on 20.8.1997. This compromise deed was got signed from the petitioner and his brotherin law, Mohinder Pal Singh. The petitioner was released from the illegal custody in the meantime as SI Sher Gir was transferred from the city police station and was succeeded by SI Hardip Singh. Thereafter the petitioner reached police station Jind and asked the SHO to register a complaint against respondents No. 3 to 5, but no action was taken. He made a complaint and sent the same through registered post to the DGP, Haryana, DGP, Punjab and Home Secretary, Punjab as also to the Hon''ble Chief Justice of this Court. Still, no action was taken in the matter. Hence the petitioner moved this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

Notice was issued to the respondents. Separate reply by way of affidavit of Raghbir Singh, Inspector, SHO, Police Station City Jind, for and on behalf of respondents No. 1 and 2 was filed. A separate reply was filed by way of affidavit of respondent No. 3, Sukhdarshan Singh. Respondents No. 4 and 5, however, did not file any reply, though they were represented by Shri S.K. Jain, Advocate.

In their reply respondent No.1 and 2 have given the following version regarding the case :

SI Sher Gir of Punjab Police alongwith other police officials had come to police station City Jind in connection with the investigation of case FIR No. 93 dated 7.6.1997, under Sections 406/420 IPC, police station Police Lines, Patiala. They wanted to arrest the petitioner in the said case. ASI Lachhman Singh and Constable Inder Singh of Police station City Jind were deputed with the police party aforesaid for arrest of the petitioner. A copy of the entry made in the Roznamcha to this effect is Annexure RI. The petitioner was not present at his residence and as such he could not be arrested. The relations of the petitioner were directed to produce him before the police in the said case. An entry was made in the Roznamcha to this effect, copy of which is Annexure RII. The averments made in the petition to the contrary regarding arrest of the petitioner were categorically denied. The averments made in the petition in paras 3, 4, 5 and 6 were also denied for want of knowledge. The allegations made in para 7 of the petition were denied as being wrong and it was mentioned that no complaint, as alleged, was made and as such, question to register any case did not arise. In para 8 of the reply, it was contended that since no complaint was made to respondents No. 1 and 2, as such no question arose to take action against respondents No. 3 to 5.

Respondent No. 3/Sukhdarshan Singh in his reply denied about his accompanying SI Sher Gir and others to Jind on 8.6.1997. He, however, stated about lodging of FIR No. 93 dated 7.6.1997 against the petitioner for having cheated him to the tune of Rs. three lacs for getting him appointed as Inspector. He denied about obtaining any pronote from the petitioner, as is alleged in the petition. It was alleged that these allegations have been made only with a view to put pressure upon the answering respondent not to register FIR against the petitioner.

I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Counsel for respondent No. 1, 2 and 3 and have perused the record of the case.

The allegations made by the petitioner regarding the visit of the Punjab Police accompanied by ASI Lachhman Singh and Constable Inder Pal of Police Station City Jind at the residence of the petitioner have been categorically and specifically denied in the reply affidavit of respondents No. 1 and 2 and the entries made in Annexure RI and RII clearly negative the contention of the petitioner. Annexures RI and RII are the extracts of Roznamcha of police station City Jind, which prima facie the contention of the petitioner. The petitioner had no animus against the officials of the police station City Jind. Learned Counsel for the petitioner laid great stress on the photocopy of Annexure RI, wherein at the bottom entry was made in Punjabi vernacular. This has, however, no relevance inasmuch as this entry in Punjabi was made by SI Sher Gir of the police station Civil Lines, Police Post Tripuri, Patiala, where the official language is Punjabi. The averments made by respondent No. 3 also categorically deny about his having paid any visit to the house of the petitioner with the Punjab Police and about obtaining any pronotes from the petitioner, as alleged. The allegations made in the petition, thus, do not find any corroboration from the police record of police station City Jind. It is relevant to note that the petitioner has not filed even a single document to show that he ever approached the SHO/SI, police station City Jind, with a prayer to register FIR against respondents No. 3 to 5. There is no document, placed on record to show that any representation was made before the Superintendent of Police, Jind, showing a grievance against the SHO/SI of police Station City Jind for not registering the FIR. The petitioner has straightaway approached this Court for invoking its inherent powers for issuance of directions to register a case against respondents No. 3 to 5. The Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case entitled All India Institute of Medical Science Employees Union (Regd.) through its President v. Union of India and others, 1996(4) Crimes 180 made the following observations in para 4, regarding the procedure to be adopted in such a situation :

"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 a 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 offence, he is empowered to take cognizance of the offence and would issue process to the accused."

The Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of Madhu Bala v. Suresh Kumar, 1997(3) Recent Criminal Reports 679, in this context has held that a Magistrate has jurisdiction to send the complaint to the concerned police station with a direction to treat it as the First Information Report and then to investigate into the same Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.

After carefully considering the rival contentions of the parties and in view of the law as settled by the Apex Court in the aforesaid cases. I find no merit in this petition as the petitioner has an alternative efficacious remedy available to him by approaching the court of area/Illaqa Magistrate and filing a complaint in accordance with the provisions of Chapter XV of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Resultantly, the petition is dismissed.