Kehar Singh v. State of Punjab

recorded the statements of both the parties, where statement of the petitioner was somewhat contradictory, (vi) petitioner-Kehar Singh did not give any satisfactory answer at the spot, (vii) the ocular version as projected by the petitioner is somewhat contradictory with the medical evidence, (viii) the petitioner was directed to appear in the police station at 11 o'clock on 25.10.2006, but he came at

12.30 PM and his statement could not be recorded as the police officer was required to attend the cremation of Freedom Fighter Shri Sujan Singh, when he came back, the petitioner and his witnesses were not present in the police station, (ix) on 30.10.2006, the petitioner came to the police station along with his witnesses and made the statements, (x) according to the investigating officer, some discrepancies were noticed in their statements relatable to the place of occurrence and medical evidence and (xi) not only that, the investigating officer decided and accepted the plea of alibi of the accused, as according to him, the accused were not present at the spot at relevant time of occurrence.

In this manner, while appreciating the minor discrepancies in the evidence, the investigating officer prepared the report(Annexure P-1) and initiated the criminal proceedings under Section 182 IPC against the petitioner, which postulates that “Whoever gives to any public servant any information which he CRM No.M-7093 of 2009 4 knows or believes to be false, intending thereby to cause, or knowing it to be likely that he will thereby cause, such public servant--(a) to do or omit anything which such public servant ought not to do or omit if the true state of facts respecting which such information is given were known by him, or (b) to use the lawful power of such public servant to the injury or annoyance of any person, shall be punished under this Section. A co-joint reading of this provision would reveal that knowledge or belief that the information is to be false by the petitioner, is a condition precedent for initiation of these proceedings, which are totally lacking in the present case.

Having regard to the rival contentions of the learned counsel for the parties, to my mind, the investigating officer exceeded his jurisdiction of investigation, as contemplated under Chapter XII Cr.P.C., which deals with the receipt of information by the police and their power to investigate a criminal case. He fell in legal error in assuming the function of the court in minutely appreciating the evidence in this relevant connection. According to Section 154 Cr.P.C., as soon as, the police officer received the information of a cognizable case, he has to reduce the same into writing, after obtaining the signatures of the complainant in token of its correctness.

Sequelly, Section 169 Cr.P.C. escalates that if, upon an investigation under this Chapter, it appears to the officer In-charge of the police station that there is not sufficient evidence or reasonable ground of suspicion to justify the forwarding of the accused to a Magistrate, such officer shall, if such person is in custody, release him on his executing a bond, with or without sureties, as such officer may direct, to appear, if and when so required, before a Magistrate empowered to take cognizance of the offence on a police report and to try the accused or commit him for trial.

Likewise, Section 170 Cr.P.C. further envisaged that if, upon an investigation under this Chapter, it appears to the officer in charge of the police CRM No.M-7093 of 2009 5 station that there is sufficient evidence or reasonable ground as aforesaid, such officer shall forward the accused under custody to a Magistrate empowered to take cognizance of the offence upon a police report and to try the accused or commit him for trial, or, if the offence is bailable and the accused is able to give security, shall take security from him for his appearance before such Magistrate on a day fixed and for his attendance from day to day before such Magistrate until otherwise directed.

Meaning thereby, the police officer has a very limited role of investigation and did not have the jurisdiction to minutely appreciate the evidence of the complainant and to decide and accept the plea of alibi etc. of the accused as has been, so recorded by the investigating officer in the instant case. He was legally required to complete the investigation and as soon as it is completed, it was his legal duty to forward to the Magistrate a report to empower to take cognizance of the offence on a police report, a final police report in the form prescribed by the State Government. It was his statutory duty to investigate the case under Chapter XII Cr.P.C. in general and to act accordingly to comply with the provisions of Sections 169 and 170 Cr.P.C. in particular and not otherwise.

Such, thus, being the legal position, to me, the police officer appears to have exceeded his statutory investigational jurisdiction and illegally assumed the role of a criminal Court in minutely appreciating the evidence, coming to the conclusion that there are certain discrepancies relatable to the medical evidence and place of occurrence in the statements of the witnesses, to decide and accept the plea of alibi of the accused and to prosecute the petitioner, as enshrined under Section 182 IPC. Thus, the very initiation of criminal proceedings under Section 182 IPC against the petitioner by the investigating officer on the basis of such illegal, nonest and without jurisdiction report(Annexure P-1) is nothing, but a sheer abuse of process of law, cannot legally be permitted to continue and is liable to be quashed in this relevant behalf. CRM No.M-7093 of 2009 6

There is another aspect of the matter which can be viewed from a different angle. It is not a matter of dispute that the petitioner has already filed a complaint in regard to the same incident and after taking into consideration the preliminary evidence, the trial Magistrate has summoned the accused vide summoning order(Annexure P-2). That means, the subject matter of the case is subjudiced and the trial Magistrate is seized of the matter, relatable to truth or otherwise of the version projected by the petitioner in this context. In that eventuality, the proceedings under Section 182 IPC are not legally maintainable.

An identical question arose before this Court in case Ramesh Chand Versus State of Haryana, 2006(4) RCR(Criminal) 718. Having considered the matter deeply, it was ruled that once the petitioner has filed a private complaint and the accused have been summoned, then it cannot be said that the information supplied by the petitioner was false. Therefore, the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner that in view of the pendency of complaint and summoning order in respect of the same offence, the proceedings under Section 182 IPC against the petitioner cannot be permitted to continue, has considerable force and the contrary arguments of the learned State Counsel 'stricto sensu' deserve to be and are hereby repelled under the present set of circumstances. The observations in the aforesaid judgment “mutatis-mutandis” are applicable to the facts and circumstances of this case and are the complete answer to the problem in hand.

Needless to state that, nothing observed here-in-above, would reflect, in any manner on merits of the case, as the same has been so recorded for a limited purpose of deciding the instant controversy under Section 182 IPC. October 25, 2010 (MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR) JUDGE