Gurdev Singh vs State of Punjab

S. S Grewal, J

This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Code) relates to quashment of the first information report (Annexure P 1) registered against the petitioner, on the around that the same was illegal, an abuse of the process of the Court, against the interests of justice, hit by Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India, and that it involves the doctrine of double jeopardy.

In brief, the facts relevant for the disposal of this petition, are that in the year 1984, the petitioner while posted as S.H.O., Police Station Longowal, District Sangrur, got a case under Section 61(1(c) of Panjab Excise Act registered against Darbara Singh and Rajan Singh, vide F.I.R. No. 89 dated 10th June, 1984. According to the petitioner''s allegations, only Rajan Singh was apprehended at the spot, whereas coaccused Darbara Singh was able to escape. Both the said accused being politically connected with Shri Sukhdev Singh Dhindsa, Senior Member of the Akali Dal, and, an exMinister, got the matter reinvestigated from Shri Daljit Singh, D.S.P., who, after investigation submitted a report that Darbara Singh was innocent, and he was shown in column No. 2 in the Police report. Shri B. R, Bansal, Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Sangrur, while acquitting Rajan Singh, made a complaint (copy whereof is Annexure 12) in writing to the Chief Judicial Magistrate Sangrur, under Ss. 193 and 211 against S.I. Gurdev Singh, for intentionally and deliberately giving false evidence in the said case without any just and lawful excuse, and the petitioner is facing trial in the said case. The Senior Superintendent of Police also referred the matter to the District Magistrate, Sangrur, under whose orders S D. M. Sangrur, conducted an enquiry and submitted report to the District Magistrate. Subsequently, on the basis of the said report, Senior Superintendent of Police got a case under Sections 218 and 193, Indian Penal Code, registered against the petitioner. According to the petitioner, the said F.I.R. was liable to be quashed.

It was also pleaded that under Punjab Police Rules, (Rule 16.38) in case a Police Officer committed a criminal offence in connection with his official relations with the public, District Magistrate can be moved as to whether the investigation of the complaint was to be conducted by a Police Officer, or by a Magistrate Ist Class, and whether the petitioner was to be dealt with judicially, or departmentally. It was also alleged that according to the provisions of Section 210 of the Code, complaint case pending in the Court was liable to be stayed particularly when the investigation in respect of the same offence is already in progress with the Police.

In its written reply it was pleaded on behalf of the State that the proceedings pending against the petitioner in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sangrur, are legal and valid, and are based on the strictures passed against the petitioners, who was Investigating Officer in the case. The District Magistrate too ordered inquiry by the S.D.M Sangrur, under the Punjab Police Rules (Rule 16,38) after completion of the said inquiry, the District Magistrate got the case under Sections 193 and 218, Indian Penal Code, registered against the petitioner. The offence under Section 218 IPC, being a cognizable offence, a Police Officer is fully competent to investigate it. Further investigation would be on the basis of the impugned FIR which is legal and valid, and does not violate any provision of law, and that no sanction under Section 195 of the Code is required for launching, prosecution under Section 218, Indian Penal Code.

Counsel for the parties were heard.

Admittedly, allegations regarding commission of offence under Section 193, Indian Penal Code, are common both in the complaint made by Court (Annexure P2), and the first information report (Annexure PI), which was got registered by the Senior Superintendent of Police against the petitioner, on the report of the District Magistrate. Apart from the offence under Section 193, Indian Penal Code, the complaint (Annexure P 2) also relates to commission of offence by the petitioner under Sec. 211, Indian Penal Code No. legal defect has been pointed cut by the petitioner''s counsel concerning the complaint made by the Judicial Magistrate (Annexure P2), as the same complies with the provisions of Section 195(1)(b)(i) of the Code.

The main grievance of the petitioner is that on the same facts, after the complaint by the Court (Annexure P2) had been made, the impugned first information report (Annexure P 1) was got registered.

The offence under Section 218 of the Indian Penal Code is cognizable by the Police, and as such there would be no legal bar for the Police to investigate the case under Section 218 of the Indian Penal Code and submit its report. The functions of the Police to investigate and that of the judiciary to take cognizance are distinct and separate though complementary to each other, in view of the authority Emperor v. Khawaja Nazir Ahmed, AIR 1945 Privy Council 18. The provisions of Punjab Police Rules (Rule No. 16.38) cannot take precedence over the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, in respect of the investigation and prosecution of the offences committed by the Police Officers in view of the authority in case State of Punjab v. Raj Kumar, 1988(1) RCR(Crl.) 639 (SC : 1988(2) SLR 83. Thus, there is no legal, or cogent ground to quash the impugned first information report (Annexure P 1).

Since both the complaint (Annexure P2), and the first information report (Annexure P1) relate to commission of different offences (Sections 211 and 218, Indian Penal Code), the proceedings in the complaint Annexure P 2) pending against the present petitioner, cannot be ordered to be stayed. Commission of offence under Section 193, Indian Penal Code, is common in both the complaint case, and the Police case referred to above.

In the interests of justice it would be desirable that both these cases are consolidated and tried together.

The trial of the petitioner on the basis of the first information report (Annexure P 1) has not yet commenced, as final report under Section 173 of the Code has yet to be presented, whereas the trial of the complaint (Annexure P2) against the petitioner has not concluded so far. Thus, the arguments advanced on behalf of the petitioner concerning applicability of the doctrine of double jeopardy, is also without any merit.

This petition is without any merit, and the same is hereby dismissed In the interests of justice, and for expeditious disposal of the case registered against the petitioner on the basis of the impugned first information report (Annexure P1). the Investigating Agency is directed to submit report under Section 173, Code of Criminal Procedure, at the earliest so that appropriate legal action can be taken on the basis of the said report. The cases against the petitioner, i. e., (i) registered on the basis of the first information report (Annexure P 1) and, the second arising out of the complaint Annexure P2) be clubbed together and disposed of expeditiously.

However, anything observed herein for the disposal of this petition, would not, in any manner, be construed to affect the rights of the parties on merits.