Mange Ram vs State of Haryana

Bakhshish Kaur, J.

Mange Ram, petitioner, seeks the quashing of the impugned order dated October 18, 1977, Annexure P4 whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kurukshetra, had discharged Dharam Pal, respondent No. 2, against whom a calendra under section 182 Indian Penal Code, was presented.

The facts culiminating into the present revision petition briefly stated, are that on February 2, 1996 Dharam Pal got recorded first information report with the police, that his elder son, namely Jagmohan, aged 17 years, and a student of 10th class is missing since December 19, 1995. He tried to trace him, but could not locate him. Panchayats were also convened which were attended by several persons but Ram Sarup, Mange Ram and Ashok Kumar were conspicous by their absence and they had not attended the panchayats. Thus Dharam Pal suspected that his son had been killed by them or they had concealed him at some unknown place. All the three were arrested on February 12, 1996. On February 24, 1996, Jagmohan was found on a S.T.D. Telephone Booth, at Zirakpur. He was brought by Head Constable Pawan Kumar from Zirakpur. The boy stated that he had gone there of his own accord. It was found that Dharam Pal tried to involve these persons due to party faction in the village and the case was cancelled and as a consequence thereof a calendra under section 182, Indian Penal Code, was prepared against Dharam Pal.

Dharam Pal accused (now respondent No. 2) was served with a notice of accusation. He denied the allegations contained in the notice and claimed to be tried. Dharam Pal challenged the order and the notice by way of filing the revision petition, which was accepted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kurukshetra, vide his impugned order, Annexure P4, dated October 18, 1997, which has given rise to the present criminal revision filed by Mange Ram, one of the accused persons against whom Dharam Pal had lodged a report with the notice.

I have heard Mr. Pritam Saini, counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Vijay Dahiya, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana, representing the State respondent.

Mr. Pritam Saini, the learned counsel for the petitioner, contended that once respondent No. 2 was served with a notice and the case was fixed for evidence, then the learned Additional Sessions Judge should not have interfered and cut short the trial by accepting the revision petition and discharging the accused. The petitioner along with others, who were arrested due to false information given by Dharam Pal, respondent No. 2 were required to be heard and without hearing them, the learned Additional Sessions Judge has erred in allowing the revision petition. Secondly, there was no illegality in the format calendra presented by S.I. Ranbir Singh under section 182, Indian Penal Code, because it was SubInspector Ranbir Singh before whom Dharam Pal had given the aforesaid information, in writing, that his son was missing or that Mange Ram and others were responsible for the same. It is well settled that the Magistrate can take cognizance under section 182, Indian Penal Code, on a complaint in writing, from the concerned public servant within the meaning of section 195, Cr.P.C.

The learned Additional Sessions Judge has meticulously discussed the point whether Dharam Pal intended to lodge a false report against these persons with mala fide intention. It is observed that had Dharam Pal intended to lodge a false report against them, he would have reported the matter to the police immediately after December 19, 1995, when his son was reportedly missing. The very fact that Dharam Pal did not report the matter for more than a month, goes to show that there was no intention on the part of Dharam Pal to involve any person in such a case. It is also observed by the Court that even after reporting the matter, the boy could not be located for 22 days. From this fact, it can be easily concluded that the learned Additional Sessions Judge has considered all the aspects of the case from every possible angle and rightly came to the conclusion of discharging the accused from the offence complained of. The legal position is that section 195, Cr.P.C. specifically provides that the Court can take cognizance of the offence under sections 172 to 188 (both inclusive of Indian Penal Code) except on the complaint, in writing by a public servant concerned, or by some other public servant to whom he is administratively subordinate.

In the result, the criminal revision fails.

Dismissed.

Revision dismissed.