Maya Devi vs State of Punjab

R.L. Anand, J.

Smt. Maya Devi, widow of Sajjan Singh, has filed the present petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of necessary direction to respondent Nos. 1 to 3 for the registration of a criminal case under various Sections as mentioned in the headnote of the petition against respondents 4 to 9 and the petitioner has further prayed that the matter may be investigated and the accused may be punished according to law. The case of Smt. Maya Devi is borne out from the application, Annexure P1, which was moved by Sh. Tarsem Singh and his mother Smt. Maya Devi and this application was addressed to the police authorities of Fatehgarh Panjtoor, Teh. Zira, District Ferozepur. A perusal of the allegations as contained in the complaint would show that as per the grouse of the petitioner on 8.9.1996, respondent Nos. 4 to 9 armed with deadly weapons came in a tractor trolley and demolished the house of the petitioner and her son as a result of which the costly luggage of the petitioner was also thrown out. The petitioner has further alleged that she has been deprived of certain money besides gold ornaments. These allegations of the petitioner were inquired into by the Police without registration of the case which perhaps was not permissible as allegations of the complaint prima facie disclosed the cognizable offence and in these circumstances the Police was duty bound to first register the case under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in view of the dictum laid down by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1991(1) RCR (Crl.) 383 : 1992 Suppl.(1) SCC 335. The State did not perform its statutory duty and as a result the petitioner has to approach this Court under the above provisions.

Notice was served upon the respondents. State admits that the complaint was filed by Smt. Maya Devipetitioner but the land, subject matter of dispute, was in fact owned by village Panchayat and there was no built structure on the land and the same is vacant. The petitioner has stored wheat straw (Turi) unauthorisedly which is still lying there. There was no electric meter installed at the said place as per the report of SDO, PSEB, Fatehgarh Panjtoor. There were two electric meters in the name of the petitioner, one domestic electric connection was installed in the house of the petitioner near Punjab National Bank, Fatehgarh Panjtoor, which is at a considerable distance from the disputed land. The second connection was a commercial electric connection installed near water works which is also situated at a distant place from the disputed land. Ultimately, the police came to the conclusion that the stand of the petitioner and her son is falsified and not tenable and that the private respondents on behalf of the Panchayat were not allowing the petitioner to take forcible possession of the Panchayat land and for this reason the petitioner is bent to put pressure upon them by lodging the criminal proceedings.

The stand of the private respondents is similar to the one taken by the State. In support of her petition, Smt. Maya Devi has placed on record some of the photographs in order to show prima facie that the incident had taken place as mentioned by her in her petition as well as in the complaint which was investigated by the Police.

I have already stated above by following the dictum of the Hon''ble Supreme Court that the complaint disclosed prima facie the commission of a cognizable offence. The police was duty bound to register the case but it has not performed its duty. The question now arises is whether the petitioner can be left remedyless for the nonperformance of the statutory duty by the Police. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has relied upon the celebrated authority of Chaudhary Bhajan Lal''s case (supra) and submitted with the help of the application/photographs/site plan that still this Court should give direction to the State for registration of case against the private respondents. On the contrary Sh. Sharma, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State assisted by Mr. Ghai who appears on behalf of the private respondents have invited my attention to some of the case law reported as O.P. Bhalla v. State, 1996(3) CCC 226, a decision of the Delhi High Court and Madhuresh v. C.B.I., 1997(1) Apex Decision (Crl.) 653 and submitted that once the allegations of the complaint have already been investigated by the State without registration of the case, no direction can now be given to the State for the registration of the case. According to Mr. Ghai, proper remedy for the petitioner is to file appropriate complaint in a Court of competent jurisdiction and it is for the learned Magistrate as per the order to further inquire under Section 166(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. This Court had the occasion to go through the case law relied upon by the counsel for the parties and also would like to refer to All India Institute of Medical Science Employees Union v. Union of India and others, 1997(1) Crl. Law Reporter 218, a judgment of the Hon''ble Supreme Court, where it was held that if the Police had failed to register the case, the petitioner without availing the remedy provided under the Code of Criminal Procedure cannot file the writ petition for seeking a direction to the CBI to reinvestigate the case. I have already stated above that the petitioner approached the police authorities for the registration of the case as she had the grouse against the private respondents that they had committed cognizable offence as mentioned in the headnote of the petition. In these circumstances, in view of the spirit of the law as laid down in Chaudhary Bhajan Lal''s case (supra) that it was the duty of the State not to shirk its responsibility but to register the case. I fail to understand why the State did not do its statutory duty. The only shield for the State is that it did not want to add to its crime graphs by ordering registration of the serious offences. Be that as it may, the State has vomitted out a definite stand that the allegations of the petitioner are devoid of any merit and that in fact she wanted to grab the land of the Gram Panchayat and that no incident had taken place as alleged by the petitioner. This stand of the State prima facie cannot be accepted or swallowed in view of the documentary evidence in the form of photographs submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner. If a person has committed serious offence, he cannot be allowed to go scot free irrespective of his status in the society being a Sarpanch or Panch, Gram Panchayat. Keeping in view the facts of the case, this Court is of the opinion that the complaint of the petitioner should be investigated by a higher authority of the State like S.P. Crimes of the District Ferozepur who may be given option that if he finds any truth in the allegations of the complaint, he may still order the registration of the case against those offenders who, in his opinion, has allegedly committed offences. The State has also option to prosecute the petitioner, if it comes to the conclusion that the complaint made by the petitioner is false. S.P. Crimes shall complete the investigation of the allegations of the petitioner within three months from the receipt of copy of this order. SSP Police Ferozepur is directed to hand over the investigation to SP (Crimes) within 15 days from the receipt of the copy of this order. The copy of this order be sent to SSP and SP Crimes for compliance.