Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 992 (PNJ)

Sat Pal v. State Of Haryana

2000-08-25

V.M.JAIN

body2000
Judgment V.M.Jain, J. 1. This is a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. filed by the petitioner seeking a direction to the official respondents to register a case against the private respondents and for directing the investigation of the case by CBI or from the Crime Branch of the Haryana Police. 2. In the petition, it was alleged that Prem Kumar, brother of the petitioner, was serving as Muneem with respondent No. 6, Telu Ram, for the last about 8 years and during the said period, the relations became strained between them and for that reason said Prem Kumar did not want to work in the month of July, 1998. It was alleged that thereupon respondent No. 6 threatened Prem Kumar and his family that he would get him kidnapped and would ruin his family and under that pressure his brother Prem Kumar again started doing the work of Muneem at the shop of respondent No. 6 at Jind. It was alleged that on 15.11.1998, Prem Kumar had gone to the shop of respondent No. 6 after lunch telling his wife that he had to settle the account with his Seth i.e. Telu Ram, as he had called him immediately after taking lunch. It was further alleged that since that time Prem Kumar had not returned to his house and is missing since then. It was alleged that immediately after the day since Prem Kumar was missing, 2 letters purported to the written by Prem Kumar were received addressed, one to the petitioner at village Banarashi and the over (other ?) to his father at Jind, to the effect that he was going to commit suicide due to harassment done by Telu Ram. It was further alleged that after searching Prem Kumar at different places, the petitioner sent complaint copy Annexure P-3 on 22.12.1998 to the SHO PS City Jind for the registration of a case against respondent No. 6-Telu Ram and his Muneem, respondent No. 7-Sunil Kumar. It was alleged that no action was taken by the police on the said complaint. It was further alleged that thereafter another complaint dated 31.1.1999, copy Annexure P-4 was sent by the petitioner to the SHO PS City Jind. It was alleged that no action was taken by the police on the said complaint. It was further alleged that thereafter another complaint dated 31.1.1999, copy Annexure P-4 was sent by the petitioner to the SHO PS City Jind. It was further alleged that apprehending that he may be caught in the net Telu Ram got FIR under Sections 420, 406, 408, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC registered against Prem Kumar and his family members on 31.1.1999 in PS Jind. It was alleged that this was done after 2-1/2 months of the day since Prem Kumar was missing and this was done only to pressurise his family not to pursue registration of a case against him (Telu Ram). It was alleged that even the wife of Prem Kumar had sent an application to the police, on the basis of which DDR No. 17 dated 15.2.1999 was recorded in P.S. City Jind, but no formal FIR had been registered. It was alleged that the police was not taking any action in the matter as respondent No. 6 had close relations with the Chief Minister, Haryana and other political high-ups. It was accordingly prayed that necessary directions be given to official respondents to register a case against respondents No. 6 and 7 and the case be investigated by an independent agency like CBI or Crime Branch. 3. In the written reply filed by Shish Pal, Inspector, SHO, PS City Jind, on behalf of official respondents No. 1 to 3, it was admitted that Prem Kumar was serving as Muneem with respondent No. 6 for the last 8 years and was residing at Jind. It was alleged that Telu Ram had made various applications to the local police with regard to the mis-appropriation of money of the firm by his Muneem Prem Kumar, whereupon on the application dated 27.1.1999, FIR No. 57 dated 31.1.1999 was registered in PS City Jind against Prem Kumar and investigation of the said case was pending with the police of P.S. City Jind. It was alleged that as per the allegations in the said FIR, Prem Kumar had not reported for duty after 14.11.1998 and on 15.11.1998 when enquiries were made from his house, it transpired that Prem Kumar had left the house for going to some relative. It was alleged that as per the allegations in the said FIR, Prem Kumar had not reported for duty after 14.11.1998 and on 15.11.1998 when enquiries were made from his house, it transpired that Prem Kumar had left the house for going to some relative. It was alleged that thereafter respondent No. 6-Telu Ram made enquiries and found that Prem Kumar had collected money from various dealers on 15.11.1998 and had mis-appropriated a sum of Rs. 4.90 lacs. It was alleged that in order to avoid the payment of the said amount of Rs. 4.90 lacs, the family members of Prem Kumar had started making false and frivolous allegations to various authorities about the dis-appearance of Prem Kumar. It was alleged that father of Prem Kumar had got DDR No. 30 dated 19.11.1998 recorded in PS City Jind with regard to the dis-appearance of his son Prem Kumar. It was alleged that in the said DDR, no person was suspected in this regard and it was prayed that his son be got traced. It was alleged that during enquiry, it was revealed that the driving licence and visiting card of Prem Kumar were received by Telu Ram through dak from one Dinesh from Ahmedabad as the same were found by him in a train. It was further alleged that on further enquiry, it was found that Prem Kumar had joined a firm at Bombay and had worked as Salesman from 28.11.1998 to 15.12.1998 and thereafter he left the job. It was alleged that during the enquiry, the police was satisfied that Prem Kumar was still alive and that he was concealing himself to avoid legal punishment in FIR No. 57. It was alleged that the story put forth by the petitioner was false. 4. Separate reply has also been filed by respondent No. 6 taking up similar pleas and alleging therein that he has no concern and alleging therein that Prem Kumar had himself absconded after mis-appropriating huge amount of money. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record carefully. 5. It is admitted case of both sides that Prem Kumar is missing since 15.11.1998 and has not returned since then. FIR lodged by Telu Ram against Prem Kumar is dated 31.1.1999. If Prem Kumar had embezzled a sum of Rs. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record carefully. 5. It is admitted case of both sides that Prem Kumar is missing since 15.11.1998 and has not returned since then. FIR lodged by Telu Ram against Prem Kumar is dated 31.1.1999. If Prem Kumar had embezzled a sum of Rs. 4.90 lacs of Telu Ram-respondent on 15.11.1998, prima facie it is difficult to believe that Telu Ram would not lodge an FIR with the police till 31.1.1999 (vide application dated 27.1.1999) nor he would file a criminal complaint against him (if police was not taking any action against Prem Kumar). However, nothing of the kind was done by Telu Ram till the lodging of the FIR. On the other hand, it has come on the record that father of Prem Kumar had got report lodged with the police on 19.11.1998 vide DDR No. 30 about the dis- appearance of Prem Kumar. The petitioner, who is brother of Prem Kumar, had sent complaints dated 22.12.1998 and 31.1.1999, copies Annexures P-3 and P-4 to the SHO PS City Jind, suspecting Telu Ram and Sunil Kumar. However, no action was taken by the police on these complaints. Only some enquiry appears to have been made. However, no FIR was registered even though Prem Kumar was missing from his house since 15.11.1998. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 6 has submitted that the matter has already been enquired into by the police and no case is made out for the registration of an FIR and getting the same investigated from CBI or the Crime Branch. 7. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the present case, in my opinion, it is a fit case where the necessary directions may be given to the local police to register an FIR on the basis of complaints submitted by the petitioner and his father to the police. 8. In view of the above, the present petition is allowed and direction is given to S.P. Jind to get a case registered in Police Station City Jind, on the complaint dated 22.12.1998 submitted by Sat Pal, petitioner and/or complaint dated 31.1.1999 submitted by Rameshwar Dass father of the petitioner to the SHO PS City Jind. The needful shall be done within 7 days of the receipt of a copy of this order. The needful shall be done within 7 days of the receipt of a copy of this order. It is further directed that the matter shall be got investigated from a Senior Officer not below the rank of DSP who shall complete the investigation within a period of 3 months from the date of registration of the FIR.