Jagjit Singh vs State of Haryana

M.L. Singhal, J.

This is a criminal misc. petition No. 15350/M of 1996 filed by Jagjit Singhpetitioner whereby he desires a direction to respondent No. 2 for registering case against Nand Lal s/o Lakshmi r/o Nangal Bardhi, P.S. Rajgarh, District Churu, Rajasthan and his associates under Sections 302/304 A/34 IPC for the murder of his son Rohtash Kumar. It is averred by him that on 10.6.96 his son died an unnatural death at Safdarjung Hospital, Delhi due to burn injuries. The deceased was working as driver on Truck Troller No. HR 023099 in Assam Bombay Carriers, Bombay. On 18.6.1996 at about noon time some companion of Nand Lal s/o Lakshmi r/o village Churu came to him and told him that his son had met with an accident; and was lying admitted in Safdar Jung Hospital, on account of receipt of injuries which were minor and that he (Rohtash Kumar) was calling him there. At about 2.45 P.M. on 18.6.1996, he (petitioner) alongwith members of his family reached Safdarjung Hospital and met Nand Lal son of Lakshmi and he was told by Nand Lal that his son had already expired on 18.6.1996. The dead body was kept in Mortuary after its identification. Post Mortem was conducted on 19.6.1996 and the dead body was received by him (petitioner) for performing last rites. Nand Lal told him afterwards that his son had died near Thermal Plant, Panipat while trying to measure the height of high power electric wires, he came in contact with live electric wife and received burn injuries. He also told him that they had gone in Maruti Van DNH 6844 on road survey. It is further averred that he made enquiry about the version of Nand Lal and came to know after enquiry that his son had come from Bombay driving Truck Troller No. HR473199 upto Gurgaon border which was loaded with heavy machinery and the said truck troller was standing near village Mahipalpur. He became suspicious as to why Rohtash Kumar would go for road survey and that too in a Maruti Van being drive by one Sajjan when he was only a driver and could not measure the height of the overhead wire, he being not a lineman, having knowledge of Electrical Engineering. He suspected foul play at the hands of Nand Lal s/o Lakshmi. His suspicion derived strength from the statement made by Nand Lal before the police at Safdarjung Police Station on 19.6.1996 that he was an employee of Assam Bombay Carrier for the last 4 years, when in fact he was owner of Truck Troller No. HR473199 and the deceased was driver on this Truck Troller. Annexure P.1 is the copy of the statement made by Nand Lal before the police of Police Station Safdarjung. On 21.6.1996, news item appeared in the Punjab Kesari (Daily) regarding death of Rohtash Kumar in mysterious circumstances. That news item turned his suspicion into reality. Annexure P2 is that news item (photostat copy). It is lying shrouded in mystery as to how Rohtash went up to measure the height of overhead high power electric wire. It is further averred that his is not an accidental death but he was murdered for the reasons best known to Nand Lal and his associates. On 26.6.1996, he made an application to SHO Police Station, Mathloda, District Panipat with a request to register the case against the culprits but no action was taken by him. The SHO Police Station, Mathloda was bound to register the case when the version made out by him was disclosing the commission of cognizable offence. Annexure P3 is the copy of that application. He submitted detailed application to the Home Minister, Haryana, copy of which is Annexure P4 praying that murder case be got registered and investigated with regard to the death of his son.

Respondents put in reply opposing this prayer urging that deceased met with an accident near Thermal Plant, Jind Road, Panipat while estimating the height of high powered electric wire with the help of a tape, causing contact of tape with high voltage electric wire which resulted into burn injuries to him. He was working as driver on TruckTroller No. HR473199 and had come from Bombay alongwith the owner of the said Truck Troller, carrying goods for Oil Refinery Bohali, Panipat. During journey for the oil refinery Bohali (Panipat), they left the said Troller loaded with heavy machinery at Gurgaon Border near village Mahipalpur. One Inder Singh resident of Karol Bagh, New Delhi who had accompanied them from Mahipalpur hired a Mtruedaruti van bearing No. DNH6844 which was driven by owner of Maruti Van for road survey and for measuring overhead live electric wire near Thermal Plant, Panipat at the instance of Rohtash Kumar under which said Truck Troller was to be passed. Inder Singh and Sajjan Singh who were standing near the victimRohtash Kumar also received strong electric current on their face and eyes. On seeing, Nand Lal rushed forward to the place of occurrence and took them both to the Civil Hospital, Panipat in the same Maruti Van from where they were referred to Sadarjung Hospital, New Delhi. Nand Lal got them admitted therein Safdarjung Hospital. During the treatment Rohtash Kumar died on 18.6.1996. The case was investigated thoroughly. The statements of Rakesh son of Shri Dariyao Singh r/o Untla, Partap son of Ram Dhari, Ram Sarup Lambardar resident of village Nara, Chaman Lal son of Lachhman Dass r/o Untla and Satpal son of Ram Kishan resident of opposite Thermal Colony Assandh Road, Panipat were recorded. After the investigation it was found that cognizable offence was not made out. So, no case was registered. It was a case of sheer accident. Police have left no stone unturned in bringing to fore the true facts.

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the State of Haryana and have gone through the record.

So far as Jagjit Singh is concerned, he was not present at the spot. He was not an eyewitness. He is revolving in the releam of surmises and conjectures. He could not possibly say that there was foul play in the death of Rohtash Kumar. He has imputed no motive to Nand Lal.

It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the police has no option to register the case and proceed with the investigation under the provisions of Chapter12 of the Code of Criminal Procedure; if the report lodged with the police discloses a cognizable offence. In support of his submission he has drawn my attention to Jasvir Singh v. State of Haryana, 1996(1) RCR 224. He has also drawn my attention to Kuldip Singh v. The State, 1994(2) RCR 498. It has been submitted that the police cannot first hold preliminary enquiry and then refuse registration of the case as a result of that enquiry. The police is required to first of all register the case and proceed with the investigation under the provisions of Chapter12 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He has drawn my attention to State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, AIR 1992 SC 604 : 1991(1) RCR 383 ; wherein Hon''ble Supreme Court in para 1 has observed that the legal mandate enshrined in Section 154(1) is that every information relating to the commission of a "cognizable offence" (as defined under Section 2(c) of the Code) if given orally (in which case it is to be reduced into writing) or in writing to "an officer incharge of a police station" (within the meaning of Section 2(o) of the Code) and signed by the informat should be entered in a book to be kept by such officer in such form as the State Government may prescribe which form is commonly called as (''First Information Report'') and which act of entering the information in the said form is known as registration of a crime or a case. In para 32 of the report it has been observed that at the stage of registration of a crime or a case on the basis of the information disclosing a cognizable offence in compliance with the mandate of Section 154(1) of the Code, the concerned police officer cannot embark upon an enquiry as to whether the informant is reliable and genuine or otherwise and refuse to register a case on the ground that the information is not reliable or credible. On the other hand, the officer incharge of a police station is statutorily obliged to register a case and then to proceed with the investigation if he has reason to suspect the commission of an offence which he is empowered under Section 156 of the Code to investigate, subject to the proviso to Session 157.

In this case, how could Jagjit Singh furnish any information to the police that his son was murdered when he was not an eyewitness to the event of the death his son. In this case, Jagjit Singh cannot insist upon the registration of the case when he was not an eyewitness. He is groping in the dark and roving in the realm of conjectures.

So, this criminal misc. petition fails and is dismissed. If advised, he may institute criminal complaint in the Court at Panipat against the persons whom he feels that they are responsible for the death of his son.