Gurjant Singh vs State of Punjab and Another

Harphul Singh Brar, J.—A prayer has been made in this petition u/s 482, Cr.P.C. seeking direction to the respondents by this Court for registration of a criminal case under Sections 382/384/386/389/392/395/148/149, I.P.C.

It has been averred in the petition that petitioner Gurjant Singh is a registered power of attorney on behalf of Smt. Amarjit Kaur, w/o Balwant Singh and Smt. Daljit Kuar w/o Gurbans Singh, both residents of village Gill Kalan, Tehsil Phul, Distict Bathinda vide registered power of attorney No. 7913, dated 13-12-1996.

The Government of India had issued a stage carriage permit in favour of Smt. Daljit Kaur and Smt. Amarjit Kaur for plying a mini bus between Rampura Nathana vide permit dated 30-1-1996 issued under the signature of Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Ferozpur. A bus No. PB-03-D-4200 was purchased by Smt. Daljit Kaur and Smt. Amarjit Kaur for plying on the said route. The petitioner being the power of attorney of Smt. Daljit Kaur and Amarjit Kaur used to manage the running of the bus as per the route permit of bus No. PB-03-D-4200 plying between Rampura Nathana.

It is then mentioned in the petition that on 16-4-1997 at about 11.45 a.m. when the petitioner was travelling in his mini but No. PB-03D-4200 on the route between Rampura and Nathana, Inderjit Singh son of Harpal Singh armed with a rifle, Harpal Singh son of Harnam Singh armed with a rifle residents to village Harnam Singh wala, Tehisil Phul, Gurmait Singh son of Mehar Singh, resident of village Mehraj armed with double barrel rifle, Barinder Singh son of Avtar Singh resident of Rampura Mandi armed with a double barrel gun, Gurtej Singh son of Mehar Singh resident of village Mehraj armed with Gandasa, Swinder Pal Singh resident of Rampura armed with a kirpan, Ranjit Singh driver of village Kaleke armed with a Dang Blocked the road by parking their truck bearing registration No. PAT-2685 near the brick Kiln at a distance of 4 kilometers from village Bath. Inderbir Singh son of Harpal Singh who was armed with a rifle signalled the driver to stop the bus and all the men who were armed with rifles climbed the bus after opening the windows. Barinder Singh pointed his rifle on the neck of Mit Singh and asked him to hand over the keys of the bus and to get down from the bus while Inderveer Singh put his rifle on the neck of Jugaraj Singh, conductor and asked him to hand over the cash bag to him. Thus, after putting Jugaraj-Singh conductor under fear of death, Inderveer Singh and Harpal Singh snatched the cash bag from the conductor containing cash worth Rs. 900/- and ''B'' part of permit and other papers of the bus. Gurmai Singh and Barinder Singh pointed their rifles towards the neck of Mit Singh driver and asked him to get down from the bus and in case he failed to do so he will be done to death. Thus, under this threat the driver got down from the bus and left the keys in the ignition point Gurtej Singh and Swinder Pal Singh started hurling filthy abuses to the petitioner in the name of mother and sister and asked him to get down from the bus. On being threatened the petitioner came out of the bus along with other passengers after being threatened by them Ranjit Singh driver started the bus and all these persons took away the bus of the petitioner along with the registration book and insurance policy after putting the petitioner in fear of death.

It is further averred in the petition that the petitioner lodged a written complaint at police post Bhucho Mandi on 16-4-1997 itself narrating the entire facts of the incident before the Station House Officer Incharge Police Post Bhucho (Respondent No. 3). A copy of the complaint lodged before the SHO is annexed as Annexure P- l with this petition.

It is then averred in the petition that on 17-4-1997 the petitioner approached the Senior Superintendent of Police Bathinda (Respondent No. 2) for taking action against the accused and for registeration of a criminal case against them since it discloses the commission of a cognizable offence but the Senior Superintendent of Police Bathinda has failed to take any action against the accsued and has refused to register a case against them.

It is further averred that the accused had committed extortion by putting the driver and conductor of the bus under fear of death while armed with deadly weapons and had also committed dacoity after forming unlawful assembly of more than five persons and thus committed a cognizable offence.

State of Punjab, Senior Superintendent of Police, Bathinda, and Station House Officer, Police Post Bhucho Mandi, District Bathinda have been made as respondents by the petitioner but no reply has been filed on behalf of any of them. Reply has been filed by one Sohan Singh, Deputy Superintendent of Police Phul, District Bathinda on behalf of all the respondents.

At the outset, it may be mentioned that definite allegations of not registering a case against the accused have been made in the petition by the petitioner against respondents Nos. 2 to 3 i.e. Senior Superintendent of Police and Station House Officer No. 2 nor respondent No. 3 has respectively but neither respondent chose to file an affidavit to rebut the averments made by the petitioner in his petition against them.

It is further relevant to mention here that in para No. 6 of the reply filed by Sohan Singh, DSP, Phul it has been stated that an application dated 17-4-1997 of the petitioner was received in the office of Senior Superintendent of Police, Bathinda which was ordered to be enquired into and after thorough: verification the allegations levelled therein were found to be false and on the report of Station House Officer, Police Station Nathana which was duly endorsed by Sohan Singh, DSP, the Senior Superintendent of Police, Bathinda ordered the filing of the application being without any truth and being totally false.

Learned State Counsel was asked in the Court to show any file or papers to the Court which could reveal that any valid enquiry in accordance with the provisions of Criminal Procedure Code has been made by the SHO and to show the contents of that enquiry, but the State Counsel was unable to show any paper or file vide which an enquiry has been made by any police Officer in accordance with Chapter XII of Cr.P.C. However, it is discerned from the written statement as well as from the reply of the State counsel that no case was registered on the basis of a complaint filed by the petitioner before the SHO concerned or on the basis of a complaint filed before the SSP concerned which prima facie shows the commission of a cognizable offence.

Admittedly, a complaint has been lodged by the petitioner before the SHO and the SSP concerned and a reading of the complaint which is filed with this petition prima faice discloses a cognizable offence. A definite procedure has been provided in the Criminal Procedure Code to deal with the complaints lodged u/s 154 Cr. P.C. before the police and further light has been thrown on the subject by the Supreme Court in State of Haryana and others Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal and others, . Relevant observations of the Supreme Court are re-produced as under:

If any information disclosing a cognizable offence is laid down before an officer incharge of a police station satisfying the requirements of Section 154(1) of the Code, the said police officer has no other option except to enter the substance thereof in the prescribed form, that is to say, to register a case on the basis of such information. ''Reasonableness'' or ''credibility'' of the said information is not a condition precedent for registration of a case. The police officer should not refuse to record an information relating to the commission of a recognizable offence and to register a case thereon on the ground that he is not satisfied with the reasonableness or credibility of the information. In Section 154(1) the legislature in its collective wisdom has carefully and cautiously used the expression ''information'' without qualifying the same as in Section 41(1) (a) or (g) of the Code wherein the expressions, ''reasonable complaint'' and credible information'' are used.

After relying Upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Bhajan Lal''s case (supra), even this High Court has in relevant cases issued directions to the concerned authorities to register a case on the basis of complaints referred to in those petitions. Reference may be made to 1997 (3) R C R 158 Surinder Singh v. State of Punjab and ILR 1996 P & H 121 Gurmit Singh and Others Vs. State of Punjab, .

Learned counsel for the State submits that the petitioner/complainant could file a complaint before a Magistrate if the police did not entertain or act on his complaint. His claim should not be entertained u/s 482 of Cr. P.C. when an alternative remedy for filing a complaint to the Magistrate is available to the petitioner. He has cited 1996 (4) (SC) 180 All India Institute of Medical Sciences Employees Union (Regd) through its President v. Union of India. In order to substantiate his argument.

The above authority of the Supreme Court is not applicable to the facts of this case. As is discernable from All India Institute of Medical Sciences Employees Union Case (supra) it appears that the petitioner neither filed any complaint before the police nor he lodged any complaint u/s 190 read with Section 200 of the Cr.P.C. but straightway filed a petition before the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It was in those circumstances that the Supreme Court observed that the petitioner was not entitled to approach the High Court by filing a writ petition and seeking a direction to conduct an investigation by the C.B.I. This factual position is made clear by the following observations of the , Supreme Court in All India Institute of Medical Sciences Employees Union''s case (supra):

The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for, short the ''Code'') prescribes the procedure to investigate into the cognizable offences defined under the Code. In respect of cognizable offence, Chapter XII of the Code prescribes the procedure:; information to the police and their powers to investigate the cognizable offence. Sub-section (1) of Section 154 envisages that "every information relating to the commission of a cognizable offence, if given orally to an officer in charge of a police station, shall be reduced to writing by him or under his direction, and he read over to the informant; and every such information, whether given in writing or reduced to writing as aforesaid, shall be signed by the person giving it, and the substance thereof shall be entered in a book to be kept by such officer in such form as the State Government may prescribe in this behalf". On such information being received and reduced to writing, the officer in charge of the police station has been empowered u/s 156 to investigate into the cognizable cases. The procedure for investigation has been given u/s 157 of the Code, the details of which are not material. After conducting the investigation prescribed in the manner envisaged in Chapter XII, charge sheet shall be submitted to the Court having jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offence. Section 173 envisages that; 0) Every investigation under this Chapter shall be completed without unnecessary delay (2) As soon as it is completed, the officer in charge of the police station shall forward to a Magistrate empowered to take cognizance of the offence on a police report in the form prescribed by the State Government giving details therein. Upon receipt of the report, the Court u/s 190 is empowered to take cognizance of the offence. u/s 173(8), the investigating officer has power to make further investigation into the offence.

When the information is laid with the police but no action in that behalf was taken, the complainant is given power u/s 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 u/s 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.

In this case, the petitioner had not adopted either of the procedure provided under the Code. As a consequence, without availing of the above procedure, the petitioner is not entitled to approach the High Court by filing a writ petition and seeking a direction to conduct an investigation by the CBI which is not required to investigate into all or every offence.

Admittedly, in the case in hand, a complaint was filed before the police authorities u/s 154(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code but the concerned police authorities were negligent in not performing their duties in accordance with the definite procedure provided to deal with such cases under the Criminal Procedure Code.

Sub-section (1) of Section 154 envisages that "every information relating to the commission of a recognizable offence, if given orally to an officer in charge of a police station, shall be reduced to writing by him or under his direction, and be read over to the informant; and every such information, whether given in writing or reduced to writing as aforesaid, shall be signed by the person giving it, and the substance thereof shall be entered in a book to be kept by such officer in such form as the State Government may prescribe in this behalf. On such information being received and reduced to writing, the officer in charge of the police station has been empowered u/s 156 to investigate into the cognizable cases. The procedure for investigation has been given u/s 157 of the Code. After conducting the investigation prescribed in the manner envisaged in Chapter XII, charge sheet shall be submitted to the Court having jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offence. Section 173 envisages that (i) , every investigation under this Chapter shall be , completed without unnecessary delay (ii) as soon . as it is completed, the officer in charge of the police station shall forward to a Magistrate empowered to take cognizance of the offence on a police report in the form prescribed by the State, Government giving details therein.

The police officer concerned is duty bound to act in accordance with the procedure prescribed under a statute as stated above. It is not his sweet-will to register a case or not to register a case on information relating to the commission of a cognizable offence given to him orally or in writing. On such information being received by the officer concerned, he is obliged to reduce it into writing and it is obligatory on his part to register the case and investigate the matter., The legislature in its wisdom has not left the poor public on the whims of a police officer who is not obliged to act in accordance with law.

The learned counsel for the State has referred to another judgment of the Supreme Court in Binay Kumar Singh and others Vs. State of Bihar, . This judgment is also not applicable to the facts of the case in hand. In this judgment the Supreme Court has ruled that the officer incharge of a police station is not obliged to prepare FIR on any nebulous information received from somebody who does not disclose any authentic knowledge about, commission of the cognizable offence. The facts in this case are entirely different. In the case in hand, the petitioner had lodged a written complaint at police post Bhucho Mandi on 16-4-97 narrating the entire facts of the incident before the Station House Officer Incharge Police Post Bhucho (Respondent No. 3), and that on 17-4-97 the petitioner approached the Senior Superintendent of Police Bathinda (respondent No. 2) for taking action against the accused and for registration of a criminal case against them since it disclosed the commission of a cognizable offence under Sections 382/384/386/389/392/395/148/149 IPC; but the SSP, Bathinda (respondent No. 2) had failed to take action and had refused to register a case against them. These factual averments have been made in paras 5 & 6 of the petition which is supported by an affidavit of the petitioner and these averments made in the petitioner have not been denied either by Section House Officer, Incharge Police Post Bhucho (respondent No. 3) or Senior Superintendent of Police, Bathinda (respondent No. 2); Instead reply has been filed by one Sohan Singh, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Phul, District Bathinda who is not even a party to the petition and even in that reply it has been admitted by Sohan singh, DSP that an application dated 17-4-97 from the petitioner was received in the office of Senior Superintendent of Police, Bathinda but still no case was registered against the accused. The matter is alleged to have been enquired into by SHO, P.S. Nathana without any registration of a case against the accused who ultimately did not find anything in the complaint which was ultimately filed. Even that alleged enquiry, which has been made by SHO, P. S. Nathana has not been disclosed to the Court by the respondents for the reasons best known to them. Even the State counsel has not been able to bring to my notice any enquiry conducted by the SHO, P. S. Nathana.

In view of the factual position discussed above, it looks that the police officer concerned is guilty of dereliction Of duty in not performing his duty which is enjoined upon him by the Statute. He was expected to register the F.I.R. and then act further in accordance with law. If such things are repeated then the poor and the weaker sections of the Society shall suffer at the hands of the delinquent police officer; and the influential people of the society shall get opportunity to influence the police officer concerned. This reminds me of an old saying "the weaker goes to the wall"; but the Courts of this country cannot remain silent on such a misconduct of a police officer who does not care to act in accordance with law and who throws all the norms and procedure provided under the Cr. P.C. to the winds.

In view of my discussion above, this petition is allowed and a direction is issued to Senior Superintendent of Police, Bathinda-respondent No. 2 to get a case registered on the basis of the allegations contained in the present petition as well as the complaint Annexure P-1 with the petition. After the case is registered, the investigation shall be carried out by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Bathinda himself. A copy of this order along with a complete copy of the petition with annexures be sent to the Senior Superintendent of Police for immediate necessary compliance. A copy of this order be also sent to Director General of Police, Punjab for taking appropriate action against the delinquent officials/ officers who have not complied with the procedure as provided under Chapter 12 of the Criminal Procedure Code in connection with the registration and investigation of cognizable offences.