Sewa Singh vs State of Punjab

V.S. Aggarwal, J.

Sewa Singh petitioner by virtue of the present petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeks a direction to the officerincharge, Police Station, Jalandhar Cantt. for registration of a case against respondent No. 2.

Respondent No. 2 is the Principal of S.D. Model School, Jalandhar Cantt. Petitioner''s grievance is that attitude of respondent No. 2 towards him was very discriminatory and harsh. Petitioner was always harassed in one way or the other. Respondent No. 2 was not interested in the selection of the petitioner. On a number of occasions respondent No. 2 tried to humiliate the petitioner. On 14.8.1995 respondent No. 2 threatened the petitioner and told him "You churachamar do not know how to behave. You people of the lower caste must be suppressed; only then you will work properly." The petitioner approached the officerincharge, Police Station Jalandhar Cantt. immediately and again on 15.8.1995. He even left a written complaint but the First Information Report has not been recorded. On 22.8.1995 the petitioner reported for duty but respondent No. 2 again abused him and asked him to go out of the school. One Kundan Lal was asked to throw the petitioner out. On 25.10.1995 the petitioner was picked up by close associates of respondent No. 2 from his house. They took the petitioner towards Hoshiarpur in the school bus. The bus was stopped at a lonely place. The signatures of the petitioner were obtained on a blank paper and thereafter the petitioner was thrown out of the bus. He was threatened that if he reported the matter to the police he will be done to death. Making a grievance that no First Information Report has been recorded, the present petition has been filed.

In the reply filed by the Deputy Superintendent of Police (Special Branch) on behalf of respondents 1 and 3, it has been contended that petitioner is estopped by his own conduct. He himself had filed an application dated 24.10.1995 wherein he stated that he had filed the complaint against respondent No. 2 due to some misunderstanding and is withdrawing the same. It is not being disputed that an application was filed complaining against respondent No. 2 with the Social Welfare Officer, Jalandhar. While the matter was being enquired, the petitioner appeared before the Enquiry Officer on 24.10.1995 and gave in writing that due to some misunderstanding he had filed the complaint against respondent No. 2. He requested for withdrawal of the complaint. It is denied that any such occurrence of taking the petitioner from his house had taken place.

Respondent No. 2 filed his separate reply. The assertions made by the petitioner were controverted. It is denied that the attitude of the answering respondent was discriminatory and harsh towards the petitioner. Plea was raised that in case respondent No. 2 was biased against the petitioner, he would not have selected him for the post. There was a complaint against the petitioner. In order to pressurise respondent No. 2, he has levelled false allegations.

Learned counsel for the petitioner urged that since the complaint disclosed cognizable offences, therefore, respondent No. 3 must register the First Information Report and thereafter investigate the matter. On the contrary, the assertions of the respondents were that it is a false complaint only to pressurise respondent No. 2. They contended that petitioner had filed the complaint but later on had informed that he has no grievance against respondent No. 2.

Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the decision in the case of State of Haryana and others v. Ch. Bhajan Lal and others, 1991(1) Recent Criminal Reports 383 : AIR 1992 SC 604. One of the questions considered was as to whether the officerincharge is bound to record the FIR or not ? In paragraph 32 the answer was given in the affirmative and it was held :

"It is, therefore, manifestly clear that if any information disclosing a cognizable offence is laid before an officer in charge 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."

That being the law and assertions made pertaining to certain cognizable offences, there was no option to the officerincharge but to record the First Information Report.

Attention of the Court was drawn to the fact that the petitioner himself had given in writing that he has no grievance against respondent No. 2. Copy of such writing has been produced. Petitioner''s counsel controverted

the same while alleging that while the petitioner was taken away from his house, his signatures were obtained on blank papers. At this stage, this Court will not express any opinion on the rival contentions. It is a matter to be investigated and looked into.

Confronted with that position, learned counsel for the respondents alleged that petitioner has the alternative remedy of filing a complaint and should be directed to resort to the same, rather than the registration of the First Information Report. Reliance was placed on two decisions of this Court in the case of Dharam Vir Khosla v. Senior Superintendent of Police, Hoshiarpur, 1994(1) RCR 120 and Salilesh Darshan v. State of Haryana, 1995(1) Recent CR 599. In both these cases, a direction was given to the petitioner to file the complaint if deemed appropriate. It is apparent from perusal of the precedents that they were confined to the peculiar facts. The scope of subsection (1) of Section 154 Cr.P.C. and the import of the decision in the case of State of Haryana & others v. Ch. Bhajan Lal and others, (supra) had not been considered. Therefore, with respect to the question in controversy, keeping in view the law laid down by the Supreme Court, it is not possible to accept the ratio of these decisions.

For these reasons, the petition is allowed. It is directed that respondent No. 3 will register a First Information Report on the basis of the complaint of the petitioner. It is not inappropriate to point that there are certain peculiar features pertaining to the present case with respect to the writing given by the petitioner withdrawing his complaint. It is to be hoped that investigation would be conducted keeping in view all the facts and circumstances.