ORDER
1. By this order I shall be disposing of two Criminal Miscellaneous Petitions 22273-M and 27894-M of 1997 as the matter involved in these petitions is identical in nature.
2. Petitioner has filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for issuing a direction to the respondent 1 to 3 to registar a criminal case against respondents 4 to 7 under Sections 365/367/384/387/506/342/347 read with Section 34 of the Indian Panel Code.
3. Petitioner's contention is that he is son of Surinder Kumar Jain, a deed writer, and Bajrang Lal Surinder Kumar Jain's sister's son, is also a deed writer. On 28-8-1997 Mani Ram son of Mamu Ram came to Bajrang Lal in Tahsil premises, Hansi, as he wanted to purchase stamps of Rs. 20,000/- for getting the sale deed executed and registered. For that purpose, he was to deposit this amount of Rs. 20,000/- with the State Bank of India, Hansi. On the insistance of Mani Ram, Surinder Kumar sent the petitioner with an amount of Rs. 20,000/- given by Mani Ram to deposit the same in the State Bank of India. Petitioner along with Bajrang Lal went to the State Bank of India to deposit the aforesaid amount, but as the Bank employees were on strike, the amount could not be deposited. When the petitioner and Bajrang Lal were coming back, on their way, their Rickshaw went out of order; therefore, they were coming on foot. A Tata Sumo, white colour, without any number plate, stopped near them. Mahendar, Partap, Satbir, Jaibir and four five other persons came out of the vehicle and surrounded the petitioner and Bajrang Lal, they snatched the petitioner's gold chain and an amount of Rs. 20,000/- plus Rs. 70/- from the petitioner's pocket along with challan form. They all forcibly took Bajrang Lal, made him sit in Tata Sumo and left the place. Ravinder Kumar also saw this incident. Petitioner along with Ravinder Kumar came to Surinder Kumar Jain and apprised him of the incident, at 1.45 noon. They searched for Bajrang Lal, but could not trace him. The petitioner sent telegrams to the Prime Minister of India, Home Minister of India, Chief Minister, Haryana, Director General of Police, Haryana, Superintendent of Police, Hisar, Deputy Superintendent of police, Hansi and the Station House Officer, City Hisar, copies of which are Annexure P-1 to P-7. He also filed an application (Annexure P-8) before the Station House Officer of Police Station, Hansi.
4. At about 617.00 p.m. on that very date Bajrang Lal came back to the house of the petitioner and narrated the incident to him. According to him, those persons went towards Delhi, then towards Jind By-Pass, on the way, they gagged Bajrang Lal, took him to Dharam Kanta, locked him in a room on the first floor of their shops. There they all threatened him of dire consequences if his maternal uncle did not pay the amounts as demanded by them. They also said that they will not leave him till his maternal uncle comes and pays the amount for which message has been sent to him, but around 5.00 p.m. they again took him out in the same car and dropped him on the G.T. Road, near Shanti Niketan Colony and threatened him of serious consequences if he went to the police. Bajrang Lal was highly frightened. He also came to know that this incident was witnessed by several persons, namely, Krishan Kumar Lambardar, Mani Ram, Sispal and Ram Kishan. The petitioner averred that these respondents 4 to 7 have committed the aforementioned offences, but respondents 1 to 3 have not registered any case against them. Hence, it is prayed that the offence of the aforementioned sections be registered and golden chain along with Rs. 20,000/- be recovered from the accused persons.
5. Respondent No. 3 filed reply and submitted that the true fats are that Surinder Kumar Jain had entered into an agreement for sale of a piece of land comprised in Khasra numbers 1117-1118 Min at Hansi on behalf of the owners Smt. Kanta Devi wife of Bajrang Lal and Suresh Lamba etc. by representing that he was entering into an agreement with the consent of the owners. That agreement was executed on 27-9-1991 and at that time Shri Surinder Kumar Jain received Rs. 40,000/- but subsequently he also received Rs. 35,000/- on 2-11-1991 and Rs. 20,000/- on 7-11-1991. Thus, in all, he received Rs. 25,000/- towards this transaction. Later on three sale deeds, each for sale of 105 yards were executed in favour of Mohinder Singh, Jasbir and Ishwar and total amount of Rs. 2,57,000/- were received inclusive of Rs. 95,000/- paid earlier, but in the sale deeds lesser amount of Rs. 6,000/- each was shown in each sale deed. The said vendees also constructed their house on the said piece of land and also installed Dharam Kanta. These sale deeds were executed by Hukam Chand as power of Attorney of Suresh Lamba etc. but later on in 1996 these vendees Mohinder Singh etc. came to know that the piece of land actually belongs to Zila Parishad and they have been duped by Surinder Kumar Jain. Therefore, they called a Panchayat. Surinder Kumar Jain and Hukam Chand were also called. Panchayat was held on 7-11-1996 and a compromise was arrived at wherein it was decided that in case the original land of Kailash Wati is transferred in favour of Mohinder Singh etc. no amount will be paid and if Surinder Kumar Jain fails to get the sale deed registered and mutation entered then he will then pay Rs. 3,50,000/- to the vendees. Sarvshri Vijay Kumar and Chanderbhan stood as Guarantors for Surinder Kumar Jain. Copy of compromise is at Annexure R-3/2. Surinder Kumar Jain did not stick to the terms of the compromise and continued putting of the vendees on one pretext or the other; therefore, the matter was again brought in the panchayat. On 28-8-1997 Surinder Kumar Jain did not appear in the Panchayat. Bajrang Lal attended the Panchayat and assured that he will call Surinder Kumar Jain. However, to avoid payment of Rs. 3,50,000/- to the Vendees, Surinder Kumar Jain hatched a conspiracy to involve them in a criminal case and telegrams were sent to the police and other officers on 28-8-1997 by Devinder Singh alleging that Bajrang Lal has been adbucted and they have been robbed by Mohinder Singh, Jasbir Singh, Satbir Singh and Pratap etc.
5A. On receiving the said telegram, an entry was made in the Daily Diary Register and Sub-Inspector Rajinder Kumar went to make an enquiry into the matter; he found Bajrang Lal present in the house of Surinder Kumar Jain; thus, the Sub-Inspector opined that in order to embezzle an amount of Rs. 3,50,000/- Surinder Kumar Jain got this false telegram sent to the police; a thorough enquiry was made into the matter. When the police came to know that in conspiracy, false telegrams have been sent with an intention to harm Mohinder Singh etc. after obtaining opinion of the legal advisor, a complaint under Section 182 of the Indian Panel Code was lodged against Bajrang Lal, Devinder Kumar and Surinder Kumar Jain on 24-9-1997. Hence, the prayer made in the petitioner was denied.
6. Respondents 4 to 7 have not filed any reply.
7. In the above back-drop, the synopsis of the prosecution case having an errie profile can be narrated as follows :-
8. When the report (Annexure P-8) was made by the petitioner at the Police Station, Sub-Inspector Rajinder Kumar with alacrity went to the house of Bajrang Lal, who found him there. During arguments, the learned Assistant Advocate General, Haryana, admitted that without registering the offence, an enquiry was conducted by Rajinder Kumar, Sub-Inspector, to find out the truthfulness or otherwise of the allegations made in the complaint (Annexure P-8). He also recorded the statement of Bajrang Lal, Pratap Singh and Mohinder Singh. Mohinder Singh is cited as a witness in the complaint lodged under Section 182 of the Indian Panel Code. Statement of no other witness was recorded. After recording the statements of Mohinder Singh and Pratap Singh and collecting the documentary evidence, Sub-Inspector Rajinder Kumar, came to the conclusion that a false report was lodged with the police, therefore, the complaint under Section 182 of the Indian Panel Code was lodged.
9. Petitioner's learned counsel vehemently argued that without registering the First Information Report, despite the fact that report of cognizable offence was made, containing all the information about commission of the offence, names of the accused etc. with an oblique motive to help the accused persons the police proceeded to enquire into the allegations made by the petitioner, but surprisingly enough, even in this enquiry, neither the petitioner nor any other eye-witnesses of the alleged incident were interrogated by the police officials. They simply recorded the statements of Bajrang Lal and immediately switched over to record the statements of accused Mohinder Singh and Pratap Singh and simply on the basis of the information given by these accused persons and also relying on the documents produced by them, police came to the conclusion that false allegations were made in report (Annexure P-8) against accused persons and on that premise, complaint under Section 182 of the Indian Panel Code was lodged against Bajrang Lal and others. Learned counsel argued that the police did not have that power and they have failed to follow the procedure laid down in the Code of Criminal Procedure.
10. Learned Assistant Advocate General, Haryana, rightly admitted during arguments that from the complaint (Annexure P-8), cognizable offences were clearly made out. Even the names of the accused persons were mentioned there in, but he submitted that before registering the First Information Report, police wanted to enquire into the truthfulness of the allegations made therein; therefore, they conducted an enquiry and found that the allegations were palpably false and hence, First Information Report was not registered. Learned Assistant Advocate General, Haryana, submitted that under Rule 24 of Chapter XXIV of the Punjab Rules, 1934 (which are applicable in Haryana State also), Sub-Inspector Rajinder Kumar, was within his right to hold such an enquiry.
11. Learned Senior counsel Mr. R. S. Cheema, appearing for respondents 4 to 7, relying on Dera Siri Chand Darbar v. State of Punjab, 1998 (1) All India Criminal Law Reporter 763, submitted with all vehemence at his command that when such a nebulous information was give to the police, police was not obliged to record the First Information Report on the basis of the complaint (Annexure P-8). As they doubted the contents of the said report, they scrutinised the said information and found that is was false. Hence, it cannot be said that the police has favoured the accused persons or have not discharged their duties as per the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure or Punjab Police Rules.
12. After hearing the rival contentions, let me now delve deep into the merits of the case.
13. Rule 24.1 Chapter XXIV of the Punjab Police Rule is considered by the Apex Court in Madhu Bala v. Suresh Kumar, 1997 (3) RCR (Criminal) 679 : (1997 Cri LJ 3757). The Apex Court held (at page 3760; of Cri LJ) :-
'......... Under Rule 24.1 appearing in the Chapter every information covered by Section 154 of the Code must be entered in the First Information Report Register and substance there of in the daily diary. Rule 24.5 says that the First Information Report Register shall be printed book in Form 24.5(1) consisting of 200 pages and shall be completely filled before a new one is commenced. It further requires that the cases shall bear an annual serial number in each police station for each calendar year ............'
The Apex Court further held :-
'............. Keeping in view the provisions of Section 156(1) of the Code which empowers the police to investigate into a cognizable 'case' and the Rules framed under the Indian Police Act, 1861(i) police is duty bound to formally register a case and then investigate into the same ............'
14. From a plain perusal of the complaint (Annexure P-8), it is evident that information about the cognizable offence was given to the police disclosing the names of the accused persons. To prop up a case against the accused persons. Sub-Inspector Rajinder Kumar, while conducting an enquiry, decided not to record the statements of the complainant or witnesses to be pointed out by him but embarked upon recording the statements of the accused persons Mohinder Singh and Pratap Singh. Thus, this lukewarm and cursory investigation was conducted by the police which became lame from the very beginning. The Court cannot blink at their unlawful act. The Enquiry Officer has dealt deep on the point of enmity between the parties due to some business dealings or contract of sale. It is trite that enmity is double edged weapon as it may provide a motive for crime as also for false implication. It is traversity of justice that in such a case when the allegation was made that the accused persons have snatched gold chain from the petitioner as well Rs. 20,000/- and Rs. 70/- from his pocket along with challan form, no attempt was made by the Enquiry Officer to interrogate the petitioner or to recover these items. The Enquiry Officer arrogated to himself the power to initiate an enquiry without registering the First Information Report in connection with complaint (Annexure P-8) and also to conclude the enquiry and prosecute the complainant and his witnesses under Section 182 of the Indian Panel Code.
15. The statements of Mohinder Singh and Pratap Singh, alleged accused persons, recorded during this enquiry, are not placed on record, but copy of the statement of Bajrang Lal recorded during this enquiry is placed on record. Culling the evidence of this witness, I glean that no attempt was made by the Enquiry Officer to elicit the facts even from this witness with regard to whole of the incident. It seems that in hot haste, his short statement was recorded; he was not interrogated with regard to all the facts mentioned in the complaint. This argument is preposterous. That only nebulous information was given to the police with regard to the said offence. I am constrained to reject the prayer so fervently advanced by Mr. Cheema, Senior Counsel, in his usual vehemence that it was a totally false information given to the police and therefore, after holding preliminary enquiry when they arrived at the conclusion that the information was patently false, the police was within its right to prosecute the complainant and his witnesses under Section 182 of the Indian Panel Code.
16. From the facts narrated above, it is apparent that the Inquiring Police Officer truseed up the enquiry in hot haste. The complaint was made on 28-8-1997; Enquiry Officer concluded the enquiry and after obtaining the opinion of the Legal Advisor lodged the complaint under Section 182 of the Indian Panel Code against the complainant and his witnesses on 24-9-1997, a copy of which is appended in Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 27894-M of 1997. From the Kalendra, it is apparent that the only witness cited therein is accused-respondent Mohinder Singh son of Bhim Singh. From the above facts, can it be suggested with any modicum of reasonableness that Enquiry Officer conducted the enquiry with a view to find out whether information given to him in complaint (Annexure P-8) had any truthfulness or not. The way in which the enquiry was conducted by him clearly indicates that it was done with an oblique motive to help the accused persons. On a plain perusal of the complainant (Annexure P-8) it cannot be said that it was bereft of truth hook, line and sinker. The Enquiry Officer refused to see beyond his nose. His finding rests on fragile foundation. When such a complaint is lodged at any Police Station and any Police Officer proceeds to enquiry into the allegations made therein he has to hold the enquiry in an impartial manner with a view to find out the truthfulness of the allegations made therein. It is not the fiefs of the Investigating Officer. From the reply submitted by respondent No. 3, it is evident that he deflected the course of justice.
17. If respondent No. 3 would have examined the complainant and other witnesses named in the complaint (Annexure P-8) and would have interrogated Bajrang Lal with regard to all facts mentioned in complaint (Annexure P-8) and thereafter if he would have declined to register an First Information Report, the prosecution could have some basis to stand on its legs. When Bajrang Lal was interrogated, no question was put to him with regard to the golden chain and Rs. 20,000/- plus Rs. 70/- and Treasury Challan Form, which only indicates that recording of his statement was just an eye wash.
18. When information about cognizable offence was received by respondent No. 3 in the form of complaint (Annexure P-8) about the cognizable offence, respondent No. 3 was duty bound to record it as First Information Report under Section 154, Code of Criminal Procedure, read with Rule 24-1 of Chapter XXIV of Punjab Police Rules, but without recording this First Information Report, respondent No. 3 proceeded to hold an enquiry into the allegations made in complaint (Annexure P-8) and even that inquiry was not held in right earnest to arrive at the truth.
19. Hence, in my considered view, respondent No. 3 failed to perform his official duty. Accordingly, petition is hereby allowed. Respondents 1, 2 and 3 are hereby directed to register First Information Report under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on the basis of complaint (Annexure P-8) and then to hold investigation into the said offence.
20. In view of the order passed with regard to Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 22273-M of 1998 Crl. Misc. No. 27894-M of 1997 is also allowed. Calender submitted under Section 182 of the Indian Panel Code against petitioner Bajrang Lal, Devinder Kumar and Surinder Kumar Jain is hereby quashed. Unless, the Station House Officer of Police Station, Hansi makes a thorough investigation into the allegations made in complaint (Annexure P-8) lodged by petitioner Devinder Kumar, it cannot be said that the complainant gave false telegram complaint (Annexure P-8) with an intention to cause public servant to use his lawful power to the injury of these accused persons/respondents. Hence, calender filed under Section 182 of the Indian Panel Code is hereby quashed. Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No, 27894-M of 1998 is also allowed.
21. Order accordingly.