Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 1467 (PNJ)

Sheodan Singh v. State Of Haryana

2000-11-30

S.S.NIJJAR

body2000
Judgment S.S.Nijjar, J. 1. Petitioner under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeks quashing of FIR No. 395 dated 6.4.1998 under Sections 448/342/325/323/34 IPC registered at Police Station Sadar, Gurgaon and the consequential proceedings thereto. 2. On 8.3.1995, petitioner was a serving police official. A complaint was made against the petitioner and others before the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gurgaon. After hearing the preliminary evidence, the petitioner along with some others have been ordered to be summoned by order dated 21.4.1995. The allegations in the complaint are the workers of Maruti Udyog had formed a cooperative housing building society namely Chanderlok Maruti Cooperative House Building Society, Chakerpur (hereinafter referred to as the Society). 3. The allegations have been made against the Cashier, President and the executive member of the Society to the effect that they have misappropriated funds worth Rs. one and half crore belonging to the Society. The complainant had been allotted Flat No. 3311-D. He exchanged his flat 3311-B. According to the complaint, the paper work had been completed, in accordance with law. On the basis of the complaint made by the complainant, an enquiry was ordered to be conducted by Sh. A.S. Khullar, Additional Deputy Commissioner, Gurgaon. The office-bearers of the Society joined hands with the petitioner and tried to pressurise the complainant to withdraw the complaint. For this purpose, they came to the house of the complainant on 7.3.1995. Since complainant was not present, his wife was directed to send the complainant to the Police Station. On 8.3.1995, the complainant is stated to have reached the Police Station at 9.00 a.m. There he was again pressurised to withdraw the complaint against the office-bearers of the Society. The complainant was made to sit in the Police Station up till 3.00 p.m. Then he was presented before the S.S.P. Gurgaon who also pressurised the complainant to vacate the flat. The petitioner and his colleagues came to the house of the complainant between 4 and 5 p.m. and again started beating the complainant in the presence of his wife. This physical maltreatment continued. The complainant went to the General Hospital and got himself medico-legally examined. Since the Police was not taking any action, he filed the complaint in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, First Class under Sections 325, 333, 452, 148, 506, 342 read with Section 149 IPC. This physical maltreatment continued. The complainant went to the General Hospital and got himself medico-legally examined. Since the Police was not taking any action, he filed the complaint in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, First Class under Sections 325, 333, 452, 148, 506, 342 read with Section 149 IPC. After examining the preliminary evidence as noticed earlier, the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gurgaon had summoned the petitioner along with co-accused. Since the petitioner was avoiding appearance in Court, the complainant was also constrained to make an application to the National Human Rights Commission. This complaint is dated 16.4.1996. After narrating the facts as noticed above, the complainant further states that he remained admitted in the Hospital for three days. A false case was registered against the complainant in which he was granted anticipatory bail. Clear cut allegations of corruption are made against the petitioner. It is also stated that the complainant on account of physical abuse suffered injuries. His hands and legs were fractured. He had also been beaten up, after wrapping his body in a blanket. This complaint was sent to the National Human Rights Commission-respondent No. 5. The Commission issued notice to the Director General (Police) of Haryana calling for a report. The Director General of Police Haryana sent the report which in turn is based on enquiry conducted by the Superintendent of Police, Gurgaon. The police report states that the allegations made by the complainant have been sustained. However, the report suggests that no action can be taken by the Police against the petitioner as a private complaint had been filed by the complainant himself against Inspector Sheodan Singh. This was said to be pending in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gurgaon and the matter was, therefore, subjudice. 4. I have heard counsel for the parties at length. Mr. Wadhwa has submitted that in view of the specific bar contained in Section 36(2) of the Protection of Human Rights, Act, 1993, the Commission had no jurisdiction to issue any notice to the Director General of Police or to investigate violation of any human rights, the same having been committed more than one year prior to the filing of the complaint. Initially Mr. Wadhwa had also laid considerable stress on the point that the date of the incident had been deliberately changed from 8.3.1995 to 8.3.1996 in order to give jurisdiction to the Commission. Initially Mr. Wadhwa had also laid considerable stress on the point that the date of the incident had been deliberately changed from 8.3.1995 to 8.3.1996 in order to give jurisdiction to the Commission. At this stage, when the matter was being argued he has, however, stated that this statement was made purely on the basis of the allegations contained in the FIR where the date is said to be 8.3.1996. After perusing the complaint it becomes apparent that the date mentioned is 8.3.1995. He, therefore, now wishes not to stress the allegations of fraud. He relies on the bar under Section 36(2) of the Protection of Human Rights Act to submit that the investigation and the registration of the FIR are without jurisdiction. Since the incident took place on 8.3.1995, the Commission could not have entertained the complaint dated 16.4.1996. 5. I have perused the report of the Commission. While disposing of the report submitted by the Director General, it has been observed that the Police has not comprehended the true scope and implication of Section 210 Cr.P.C. Once FIR has been registered on the basis of the investigation, the proceedings against the petitioner on the basis of the complaint had to be automatically stayed till the report is submitted by the Police under Section 173 Cr.P.C. If the Court takes cognizance against the petitioner, the Court shall proceed as if both the cases were instituted on a police report. The Commission also observed that Section 210 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was incorporated with a view to prevent miscarriage of justice in case where persons may secure orders of acquittal by getting a collusive case filed even though the same matter was under investigation by the Police. 6. Mr. Sethi, the learned Senior Advocate, submits that the legal bar under Section 36(2) of the Protection of Human Rights Act would not be available to the petitioner in the present case because it is a case of a continuing wrong. Petitioner has been repeatedly threatened and it cannot be said that the whole transaction was completed on 8.3.1995. 7. I have considered the entire matter anxiously and at length. I am of the considered opinion that the submissions made by Mr. Wadhwa with regard to the limitation of one year would not be applicable in the facts and circumstances of this case. Petitioner has been continuously harassed. 7. I have considered the entire matter anxiously and at length. I am of the considered opinion that the submissions made by Mr. Wadhwa with regard to the limitation of one year would not be applicable in the facts and circumstances of this case. Petitioner has been continuously harassed. It was only when the Police was taking absolutely no action that the petitioner was compelled to knock on the doors of the National Human Rights Commission. It was after a great deal of coercion that the petitioner deemed it fit to appear in the trial Court. In such circumstances, it would not be possible to interfere at this stage, by invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. This wholesome jurisdiction of the Court is to be exercised to prevent abuse of the process of law, or to otherwise secure the ends of justice. The Commission in its report has held that there is prima facie violation of human rights. Even the Director General of Police has stated that the allegations made by the complainant are sustained. At the relevant time, the petitioner was posted as S.H.O. It was his duty to prevent and detect crime and secure the safety of the residents of his locality. The allegations are that he abused this position of trust, and violated the human rights of the complainant. Victimisation, torture and corruption are the allegations made. In such circumstances, it would be wholly inappropriate to exercise the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In view of the above, petition is dismissed.