Sub Inspector Naginder Singh Rana vs State of Punjab

V.K. Bali, J.

Sub Inspector Naginder Singh Rana, through present petition filed by him under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, seeks quashing of FIR No. 39 dated May 6, 1994, under Section 13(2), 88 of the Prevention of Corruption Act read with Sections 409/167/218 Indian Penal Code registered in Police Station City Faridkot. The facts on which the relief aforesaid is sought to rest as per his case would reveal that he was posted as Station House Officer, Police Station City Faridkot on March 18, 1992, M/s Jain Gas Agency, whose proprietor is Ramesh Lal Jain, had been selling gas cylinders in black market. One Sukhdev Singh was working at the godown and Faquir Singh was working with rehra to supply the gas cylinders to consumers. Petitioner laid a trap and recovered four gas cylinders through a constable sent in plain clothes along with Rs. 800/ from accused Ramesh Lal Jain and others. After that recovery of more gas cylinders, empty as well as filled, from the godown was made. The total gas cylinders recovered were 747 out of which four were sent by the petitioner for the purposes of getting the same refilled. In the register 767 gas cylinders were shown but actual recovery was on 747 gas cylinders including 4 sent for refilling. On the basis thereof, an FIR No. 26 dated March 18, 1992, under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act was registered against Ramesh Lal Jain, Sukhdev Singh and Faquir Singh. It is pleaded that when the investigation was almost complete, petitioner was transferred from Faridkot to Ludhiana. Meanwhile, the accused in the said case, who are stated to be very influential approached the higher authorities of Police department and submitted complaints against him levelling allegations as under :

"(i) he has misappropriated 24 cylinders of gas taken from rehra;

(ii) he has accepted illegal gratification of Rs. 20,000/ from Mr. Jagdish Sharma;

(iii) he has registered a false case against the accused."

It is sought to be made out from the pleadings that the complaint aforesaid was marked to the then Dy. Supdt. of Police, Faridkot. Mr. K.B. Singh, who submitted his report dated October 19, 1992 to the Senior Superintendent of Police. The then Superintendent of Police, on the basis of the report aforesaid, submitted the matter to the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Ferozepur Range, vide letter dated November 5, 1992 stating that the complaint had been enquired into and the same was false. It is, further pleaded that since Shri Roshan Lal Wadhwa, Inspector General of Police, Internal Vigilance had since been won over by the accused and was putting pressure on the Senior Superintendent of Police and the D.I.G. to send the case for cancellation or untraced, he got a DO letter written by Shri H.R, Chadha, IPS, DIG (Crimes), Punjab, dated February 11, 1993 to Shri Bakshi Ram, IPS, DIG(FR), Punjab. Simultaneously, he addressed a letter to the DIG dated July 11, 1993 directing him to send the case for cancellation and take necessary action against the petitioner. It is on the basis of the aforesaid directions that the IG and DIG, Internal Vigilance/Crimes submitted two reports in the matter, one for cancellation and the other as untraced. Earlier, the Sr. Supdt. of Police, Faridkot had written another letter to the I.G. Internal Vigilance, Punjab, dated December 7, 1992 in which he had stated that the complaint of the accused party was totally false and the allegations levelled against the petitioner were not correct. However, once again on account of the influence of the accused party exerted over Shri R.L. Wadhwa, IPS, the case was sent to the District Magistrate for ordering an inquiry under Rule 16.38(1) of the Punjab Police Rules against the petitioner. District Magistrate, Faridkot, appointed the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Faridkot as Executive Magistrate to hold inquiry against the petitioner under PPR 16.38. It is pleaded that once the complaint against the petitioner had already been inquired into and the D.S.P. had submitted his report, there was no legal justification to reopen the matter. Even the cancellation report which was obtained by the Chief Judicial Magistrate was challenged by the petitioner by way of Civil Writ Petition (No. 13746 of 1993) and the same is stated to be pending disposal in this Court.

It is on these broad facts, as have been noticed above, that Mr. Mann, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, vehemently contends that there was neither any legal sanction nor justification for re opening the matter which had since been closed by a competent police officer after making thorough investigation and inasmuch as the matter has been re opened on account of the influence exerted by the accused in the case registered against them by the petitioner on none other than the DIG Police, FIR against the petitioner deserves to be quashed.

The matter has been hotly contested both, by the department as also by Ramesh Lal Jain, against whom petitioner had registered a case under the Essential Commodities Act.

In the written statement that has been filed by Mr. Ashok Bath, Dy Superintendent of Police, Faridkot, on behalf of the department, it is pleaded that FIR No. 39 dated May 6, 1994, under Section 13(2), 88 of the Prevention of Corruption Act and other sections of Indian Penal Code was registered on the complaint of Shri Ramesh Lal Jain after thorough inquiries. The allegations made against the petitioner were clear and specific which make out a clear commission of criminal offence. There is sufficient evidence to prove allegations against him and that there is no abuse of powers on the part of any authority. Petitioner is stated to have abused his powers as police officer by registering a false case which on investigation in accordance with law by Senior Police Officers was found to be false. He had registered a false case with oblique motive. He had taken into possession 24 filled gas cylinders which he dishonestly did not show in the recovery memo nor deposited the same at the police station and dishonestly misappropriated the same. He prepared false police records and also accepted illegal gratification of Rs. 20,000/. He was posted as Station House Officer, Police Station, City Faridkot on March 18, 1992 and had registered a case FIR No. 26 dated March 18, 1992, under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act. The socalled raid was also found to be fake one on investigation by senior police officers. The case was, therefore, investigated by the higher police officers of the agency of Inspector General (Crimes), Inspector General of Police (Internal Vigilance Cell), who had powers to do so under the Code of Criminal Procedure. A final report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was submitted in the Court of Shri Harbans Lal, Chief Judicial Magistrate, Faridkot, recommending cancellation of the case, and the learned Magistrate, after consideration of the report and accompanying police file and other documents, agreed with the report and ordered cancellation of criminal case vide his order dated August 11, 1993. The petitioner investigated the case upto March 19, 1992 whereafter the investigation was taken over by the senior police officers. On investigation by one Pritpal Singh, DSP, Faridkot, the accused in case under Section 7 of the E.C. Act were found to be innocent and it is on his report that the Chief Judicial Magistrate had discharged the accused on April 9, 1992. On the complaints made by Ramesh Lal Jain to various authorities as also the Chief Minister, Punjab the matter, was verified by Pritpal Singh, DSP, who, as mentioned above, found the FIR against the accused to be false and frivolous. Insofar as report of K.D. Singh, D.S.P. on the complaint made by Ramesh Lal Jain is concerned, it is stated that the said D.S.P. had recorded statements of Jagdish Raj, Ramesh Lal, Sunil Kumar and Naginder Singh Rana. On perusal of the inquiry report it revealed that he neither considered nor discussed the statements of Ramesh Lal Jain, Sunil Kumar and Ramesh Lal son of Amar Nath. On the complaints made by Ramesh Lal Jain, the D.I.G. of Police directed the S.S.P. to enquire into the matter thoroughly through an officer of S.P. level. Accordingly, in compliance with the orders of D.I.G., S.S.P., Faridkot, entrusted the inquiry to Shri Vidya Sagar, S.P. (HQ), Faridkot, The said officer thoroughly and completely verified the facts mentioned in the complaint and the allegations levelled against the petitioner and he came to the conclusion that the petitioner was guilty of registering a false case FIR No. 26 dated March 18, 1992 and that he had demanded and accepted Rs. 20,000/ as illegal gratification from Ramesh Lal accused of the said case through his friend Jagdish Sharma for not harassing and torturing the said accused. It was also revealed that the petitioner had actually misappropriated 24 gas cylinders of M/s Jain Gas Agency. Further investigations were done by the Crime Branch, Punjab, Chandigarh. Allegations against the petitioner were clear, specific and made out a case against him and since there was sufficient evidence and Material available to support the allegations, petitioner was booked under various sections of the Corruption Act and Indian Penal Code. The allegation of the petitioner that R.L. Wadhwa, DIG, Punjab, was instrumental in getting the case registered against him on account of the influence exerted upon him by Ramesh Lal Jain has been stoutly denied. Insofar as ordering of magisterial inquiry against the petitioner is concerned, the same has been admitted. The writ petition instituted by the petitioner against cancellation of report stated, has since been dismissed by this Court on July 4, 1994.

On the facts aforesaid, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents vehemently contend that there is ample power vested with the police under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. to make further investigation in any criminal case and that simply on the basis of the report of the D.S.P. which favours the petitioner, it cannot be said that the FIR registered against him deserves to be quashed particularly when the high ranking officers of various branches of Police in their investigations have reached the conclusion that there is material evidence that supports the allegations of Ramesh Lal Jain against the petitioner.

Ramesh Lal Jain has also filed separate written statement but there is no necessity to give details of the same, being almost repetition and reiteration of the facts stated in the written statement of the police department.

I have heard counsel appearing for the parties and have gone through the records of the case. It is conceded position at all ends and obviously by learned counsel appearing for the parties that the investigation conducted by the police officers only reflects an opinion on the accusations levelled against a citizen and it is ultimately the verdict of the Court which assumes finality and is binding upon all concerned, if that is correct proposition of law, then it is wholly ununderstandable as to why simply because at one stage during investigation an officer of the rank of D.S.P. had found the allegations against petitioner to be false, the present FIR can be quashed. It is well within the rights of a citizen to make complaint(s) against one sided or biased investigation or even an incorrect investigation and it is also within the rights of the police department to entrust the investigation to some body else and further inquire into the matter. It is this right of the police which has been exercised in the present case for which there is ample support coming from the Code of Criminal Procedure. Subsection (8) of Section 173 Cr.P.C. runs thus :

"Nothing in this section shall be deemed to preclude further investigation in respect of an offence after a report under subsection (2) has been forwarded to the Magistrate and, whereupon such investigation, the officer in charge of the police station obtains further report or reports regarding such evidence in the form prescribed; and the provisions of subsection (2) to (6) shall, as far as may be, apply in relation to such report or reports as they apply in relation to a report forwarded under subsection (2)."

A bare reading of subsection (8) of Section 173 would, thus, demonstrate that there was no illegality in police department making further inquiries into the matter even though the D.S.P. had submitted a report favouring the petitioner. That apart, insofar as FIR against Ramesh Lal Jain and others is concerned, the same was thoroughly enquired into and the police came to a definite conclusion that the FIR was not based on correct facts and as such the same was sent as cancelled. The Magistrate dealing with the report of cancellation submitted by the police discharged the accused. This matter was agitated by the petitioner before this Court by way of Civil Writ Petition No. 13746 of 1993 which, as mentioned above, has since been dismissed, Sufficient to say that matter against Ramesh Lal Jain and others has assumed finality and it will be too much for the petitioner to even now contend that the investigation conducted by him against Ramesh Lal Jain and others was correct and the case registered against him is false. This should, however, not be taken to be an expression of opinion that if FIR against Ramesh Lal Jain has been sent as cancelled, petitioner automatically is involved in registering a false case against them. This matter is before the trial Judge, who would go into the allegations of prosecution against the petitioner on the basis of evidence and the fact that the FIR against Ramesh Lal Jain and others has been sent as cancelled has been mentioned only for the purpose of deciding the present petition.

Learned counsel for the petitioner as a last ditch effort, has tried to find faults with various reports sent by the Police Officers with an endeavour to show that the same were antedated. The Court does not wish to go into this issue as finding thereon necessarily requires recording of evidence which is always in the exclusive domain of the trial Judge, being not permissible in a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. except in rarest of rare cases.

Finding no substance in this case, I dismiss the same. However, in totality of the circumstances of the case and, in particular, that the matter has been pending since long time, the trial Judge, seized of the matter would endeavour his very best to conclude the trial as expeditiously as possible even by giving preference to this case over others. This is so said in particular, as the petitioner, who is also a police officer, has been under constant strain ever since the case was registered against him.