Sarwan Ram vs State of Punjab

K.S. Kumaran, J.

PetitionerSarwan Ram has approached this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure read with Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for directing the official respondents 1 to 4 i.e. (1) State of Punjab, (2) Senior Superintendent of Police, Hoshiarpur, (3) The Station House Officer, Mahilpur, and (4) Station House Officer, Police Station Sadar, Hoshiarpur to register the FIR against the privaterespondents 5 to 9 for having committed the offence of kidnapping/abducting Bhajan Pal, Manjit and their children Jyoti, Seema and Sunil.

The case of the petitioner is that his son Bhajan Pal along with his family was living in the house of his uncle Dharpat Rai in Islamabad (Police Station Sadar, Hoshiarpur). The petitioner claims that on 4.1.1996, respondents No. 5 to 9 forged a sale deed in the name of Dhanpat Rai and on the same date kidnapped/abducted Bhajan Pal, his wife and their children Jyoti, Seema and Sunil. According to the petitioner, after coming to know about this kidnapping/abducting, he reported the matter to Station House Officer, Police Station, Mahilpur, on 6.1.1996 but the Station House Officer, Police Station Mahilpur did not register the FIR. The petitioner claims that he, therefore, approached the Deputy Superintendent of Police on 10.1.1996, who assured to take action. According to the petitioner, he approached the Senior Superintendent of Police, Hoshiarpur, on 28.1.1996 but without any result. The petitioner also claims that he approached the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Jalandhar. The copy of the complaint filed is annexure P 1, wherein the remarks of the DIG of Police are found directing the Senior Superintendent of Police, Hoshiarpur, to take action. The petitioner contends that the nonregistration of the FIR is illegal and violative of the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

In the complaint, annexure P1, the petitioner has mentioned about the forgery and the abduction/kidnapping allegedly made by the privaterespondents on 4.1.1996.

The respondents No. 1 and 2 filed a reply stating that Laxmi Devi, the sister of the petitioner submitted an application to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Hoshiarpur, on 30.1.1996, a copy of which was also received through Deputy Inspector General, Jalandhar, to examine and register a case. These respondents have also stated that on 30.1.1996, the petitioner also submitted an application regarding the kidnapping/abduction of Bhajan Pal and others, received through the Deputy Inspector General, Jalandhar. According to these respondents FIR No. 40 dated 17.2.1996, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 364, 447, 148, 149 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, was registered at Police Station Sadar, Hoshiarpur, against respondents No. 5 to 9 and against the son of the petitioner, upon both these applications. According to the respondents the investigation in this case is being conducted by Police Station, Sadar, Hoshiarpur under the supervision of the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Hoshiarpur. These respondents have alleged in this reply, that the allegations of the petitioner regarding abduction of Bhajan Pal and his family members is also being investigated in the same FIR. According to these respondents, no such incident was reported by the petitioner to the Station House Officer, Police Station Mahilpur.

The thirdrespondent also filed a separate reply stating that the incident regarding kidnapping/abduction of Bhajan Pal and his family was not reported by the petitioner to the thirdrespondent. This respondent has also made a reference to FIR No. 40 dated 17.2.1996 registered against respondents No. 5 to 9 and petitioner''s son at Police Station, Sadar, Hoshiarpur.

The fourthrespondent has filed a separate reply making the similar allegations as are found in the reply of respondents No. 1 and 2.

The privaterespondents No. 5 to 9 filed reply making reference to FIR No. 40 dated 17.2.1996. They have also stated that before registration of this FIR the petitioner had reported the matter to the Deputy Superintendent of Police on 10.1.1996. They have also stated that a statement was recorded and, on the basis thereof, the offence under Section 364 of the Indian Penal Code was added in the FIR lodged by the sister of the petitioner. According to these respondents, since they have obtained bail, the petitioner wants to defeat the same by seeking registration of another FIR. These respondents have made certain other allegations which are not relevant for our purpose.

I have heard the counsel for both the sides and also perused the records.

As pointed out already, annexure P1 shows that on 4.1.1996 the petitioner''s son Bhajan Pal, daughterinlaw Manjit and their minor daughters Jyoti, Seema and minor son Sunil were kidnapped/abducted by the private respondents. It is on the basis of this, the petitioner seeks a direction from the Court to the officialrespondents to register the FIR since according to him his efforts to have the FIR registered have not borne fruit. The allegations in the complaint (annexure P1) clearly show the commission of cognizable offence. But the contention of the respondents is that while Laxmi Devi, the sister of the petitioner, has lodged a complaint against the privaterespondents No. 5 to 9 and Bhajan Pal alleging that they had forged a sale deed, the petitioner has also lodged a complaint about the alleged kidnapping/abduction of Bhajan Pal and others and that on the basis of both these applications, FIR No. 40 dated 17.2.1996 has been registered at Police Station Sadar, Hoshiarpur, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 364, 447, 34 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, and the case is being investigated, including the allegation about the alleged kidnapping/abduction. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the complaint of Laxmi Devi is that the privaterespondents and Bhajan Pal have forged a sale deed on 4.1.1996. It does not relate to the alleged kidnapping or abduction of Bhajan Pal and the members of his family. To say that on the complaint of the petitioner Section 364 of the Indian Penal Code was also added in the FIR registered on the complaint of Laxmi Devi is, therefore, wholly ununderstandable and unacceptable. But the learned counsel for the petitioner contends that while on the one hand it is stated by the respondents that Section 364 IPC regarding the alleged abduction/kidnapping of Bhajan Pal and his family members has been included in the FIR, they have also seen to it that the investigation of this FIR is stayed by this Court by consent. The petitioner filed Criminal Misc. No. 8722 of 1997 for the reception of the order of this Court passed in Crl. Misc. No. 18323M of 1996 as annexure P3. That was a petition for quashing FIR No. 46 dated 24.2.1996 of Police Station Sadar, Hoshiarpur, under Section 379 etc. of the Indian Penal Code. Crl. Misc. No. 8722 of 1997 was allowed and Annexure P3 was taken on record. Annexure P3 shows that this Court has stayed the proceedings of the case FIR No. 40 of 1996 also. But the most significant factor is this that the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Hoshiarpur, filed a reply on behalf of respondents No. 1 and 2 to the Criminal Misc. No. 8722 of 1997 wherein after making the reference to FIR No. 40 dated 17.2.1993, he has also stated that the allegation about kidnapping was also investigated in the said FIR that during investigation, Bhajan Pal was not proved to be abducted/kidnapped and as such Section 364IPC was deleted. He has also stated that in fact Bhajan Pal was found to be absconding to avoid arrest in FIR No. 40 dated 17.2.1996. Therefore, the contention of the respondents that in the FIR No. 40 dated 17.2.1996 registered against Bhajan Pal himself, the case that he was allegedly kidnapped/abducted is also being investigated cannot at all be accepted. The position is all the more so since it has been specifically stated that Bhajan Pal has not been kidnapped/abducted but is absconding to avoid arrest in the above said FIR and, therefore, Section 364 of the Indian Penal Code has been deleted from the FIR. This apart, the respondents have also managed to get stay of further proceedings of FIR No. 40 dated 17.2.1996. In these circumstances, to say that there is already FIR No. 40 dated 17.2.1996 regarding the alleged kidnapping/abduction of Bhajan Pal and his family members and, therefore, there is no need to register a fresh FIR is wholly unacceptable. In the circumstances, where the commission of cognizable offence is clearly spelt out from the allegations made in the complaint lodged by the petitioner, the officialrespondents are bound to register the FIR and then proceed with it in accordance with law.

Accordingly, this petition is allowed directing the official respondents to register the FIR on the basis of the complaint (Annexure P1) and then proceed further in accordance with law.