Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 191 (PAT)

S. Hafeez Ahmad v. Union Of India

2001-03-01

S.K.CHATTOPADHYAYA

body2001
Judgment 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the State. 2. In this case utter disregard of established principle of law by the police personnel, specially the officer-in-charge of a police station, has been highlighted for which this court directed the State counsel to file counter affidavit. The allegation against the officer-in-charge of Kotwali police station, Gaya, Respondent no. 8, is very serious and in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court from time to time, in my view, the conduct of officer-in-charge of Kotwali police station, Gaya (respondent no. 8) is to be considered seriously. 3. Accordingly to the petitioners, they are running two shops in the town of Gaya which are situated on the ground floor of petitioners residence. On 9.6.2000 at about 4 P.M. the petitioner no. 2 went to his residence to take his meal leaving his younger brother, Nishan Rizvi and servant in the shop. He heard Nulla from the ground floor MARO SHALE KO. He immediately came down and found that one Daroga of Kotwali police station, namely, Rajeshwar Prasad Singh and one Home Guard constable Ramchandra and some army constable variously armed with firearm had entered into his shop after blocking the entire locality. Ail of them were assaulting his brother, Nishan Rizvi, by uttering that "SALA TELEPHONE PAR GALI BAKTA HAI". when the petitioner no. 2 tried to prevent them -from such assault Rajeshwar Prasad Singh and Ramchandra instigated the army personnel to kill him and loot the entire materials of the shop, whereupon the army personnel, Rajeshwar Prasad Singh and Ramchandra started assaulting with fist and slap and butt of the revolver causing serious injury upon the body of petitioner no. 2. The said police as well as army personnel were asking the whereabout of petitioner no. 1, S. Hafeez Ahmad but on being informed by petitioner no. 2 that Hafeez Ahmad (petitioner no. 1) is working as an Advocate of Patna High Court, all the accused persons entered into the residential house of the petitioners and abused and assaulted three sisters as well as Bhabi of the petitioners. In the meantime, local people assembled and offenders went back. But while returning Rajeshwar Prasad Singh snatched golden chain costing about ten thousand from the sister and Ram Chandra had taken mixie costing Rs. 2,200/-. In the meantime, local people assembled and offenders went back. But while returning Rajeshwar Prasad Singh snatched golden chain costing about ten thousand from the sister and Ram Chandra had taken mixie costing Rs. 2,200/-. It is further alleged that said Daroga and army personnel dragged the petitioner no. 2 and brought him out where Military Van, Jeep and one red colour Maruti-800 were standing and petitioner no. 2 was forced to sit in the said Maruti Car. On being protested by the local people and realising the seriousness of the situation the offenders went back threatening that they would come again. 4. The petitioner no. 1, who was at Patna at that time was informed about this horrified incident and immediately he rushed to Gaya in the night itself. On the next date, that is, on 10.6.2000 a written report with regard to said incident was given to the officer-in-charge, Kotwali police station, Gaya, respondent no. 8 but, it is alleged, he flatly refused to register the criminal case and even directed the petitioners to delete the name of Rajeshwar Prasad Singh and Ramchandra. When the respondent no. 8 refused to register the First Information Report the petitioners on the same very day went to Deputy Inspector General of Police, Magadh Range, who appreciating the agony of the petitioners directed the City Dy. S.P. to look into the matter and report. This note of the D.I.G. on the written complaint is Annexure-1. However, even then no action was taken by the City Dy. S.P., the petitioners filed a petition before the District Magistrate, Gaya as well as Commissioner. When no action was taken even at the end of the District Magistrate and Commissioner, the matter was brought to the Secretary, Bar Association, Gaya and petitioner no. 1, in turn, also informed the matter to the Superintendent of Police for taking appropriate steps in the matter. However, when nothing was done, the matter was reported to the Director General of Police as well as the Home Ministry. 5. The petitioners have categorically stated that in spite of their best efforts to get the case registered against the offenders no action was taken at the end of the police administration and ultimately they have to come to this Court in the present application. 6. 5. The petitioners have categorically stated that in spite of their best efforts to get the case registered against the offenders no action was taken at the end of the police administration and ultimately they have to come to this Court in the present application. 6. Pursuant to the order dated 18.1.2001 a counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of responents 6, 7, 8 and 9 which has been sworn in by S. Sanjeev, Dy. S.P. (Law and Order), Gaya. At the outset I must say that this affidavit is Perfunctory and does not explain the reasons as to why on 10.6.2000 when the petitioners went to lodge the First Information Report by filing a written report, the respondent no. 8 refused to register the same. 7. In paragraph 6 of the affidavit it is stated that the allegations of the petitioners were inquired by the City Dy. S.P. (Gaya) in which he has taken deposition of many local people and ultimately concluded in his report that somebody from the shop of the petitioners rang to some unknow military Personnel at Gaya cantonment and abused and teased the female inmates on phone. The Dy. S.P. has come to the conclusion that on being provoked by this telephone call, some military personnal were enraged which resulted in hot exchange and blows whereby the petitioners were also assaulted (Emphasis added). The City Dy. S.P. has directed the officer- in-charge of the Gaya Kotwali police station to take legal steps against the erring military personnels. 8. In his report dated 4.9.2000 the officer-in-charge, Kotwali police station, Gaya, informed that on his personal visit to the shop of the petitioner and during enquiry he asked for the names and details of the military personnel and also requested to lodge the complaint. According to the deponent, officer-in-charge has reported that the petitioner flatly refused and said that his brother is an Advocate at Patna High Court and has filed criminal writ in Patna High Court and thus his brother has directed him not to lodge a case in the police station. Thus, the officer- in-charge was of the view that petitioners were not ready to lodge First Information Report in the police station. The report of the officer-in-charge is Annexures A and B respectively. 9. Thus, the officer- in-charge was of the view that petitioners were not ready to lodge First Information Report in the police station. The report of the officer-in-charge is Annexures A and B respectively. 9. Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, inter alia, contemplates that "every information relating to the commission of a cognizable offence, if given oraiiy to an officer in charge of a police station, shall be reduced to writing by him or under his direction, and be read over to the informant, and every such information, whether given in writing or reduced to writing as aforesaid, shall be signed by the person giving it, and the substance thereof shall be entered in a book to be kept by such officer in such form as the State Government may prescribe. In this context sub section (3) of Section 154 may be seen which reads thus : "Any person aggrieved by a refusal on the part of an officer in charge of a police station to record the information referred to in sub-section (1) may send the substance of such information, in writing and by post, to the Superintendent of Police concerned who, if satisfied that such information discloses the commission of a cognizable offence, shall either investigate the case himself or direct an investigation to be made by any police officer subordinate to him, in the manner provided by this Code, and such officer shall have all the powers of an officer in charge of the police station in relation to that offence." 10. A bare perusal of the aforesaid provisions it is crystal clear that it is mandatory for the officer-in-charge and on his refusal the Superintendent of Police to accept the report and to investigate into the matter. By no stretch of imagination it can be said that it is discretionary power of the officer-in-charge either to entertain the report by registering a first information report or to refuse it. In the case of Satish Kumar Goel V/s. State and ors. reported in 2000 Cr. L.J. 2176 a Divison Bench of Delhi High Court, under similar circumstances has taken a serious view of the matter. In that case, when the police-in-charge of the concerned police station and Deputy Commissioner of Police failed to carry out their statutory obligations under Section 154 of the Code, the High Court directed the D.G.P. to look into the complaint. L.J. 2176 a Divison Bench of Delhi High Court, under similar circumstances has taken a serious view of the matter. In that case, when the police-in-charge of the concerned police station and Deputy Commissioner of Police failed to carry out their statutory obligations under Section 154 of the Code, the High Court directed the D.G.P. to look into the complaint. Their Lordships have observed that if any information disclosing a cognizable offence is laid before an officer in charge of a police station satisfying the requirements of Section 154(1) of the Code, the said police officer has no other option except to enter the substance thereof in the prescribed form that is to say, register a case on the basis of such information. The Delhi High Court has noticed the observations of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana and ors. V/s. Bhajan Lal reported in 1992 Suppl. (1) SCC 335. 11. in the present case, as noticed above, on 10.6.2000 at 4 P.M. when the petitioners went to respondent No. 8 to register a case he did not entertain the written complaint rather asked the petitioners to delete the names of two offenders, that is, Rajeshwar Prasad Singh and Ramchandra. This averment has nowhere been denied by the officer-in- charge in the counter affidavit and, as such, the facts remain unrebutted. The direction of the officer-in-charge that the names of those two police officers should be deleted obviously leads a prudent man to think that respondent no. 8 was trying to shield his colleague, Rajeshwar Prasad Singh and Ramchandra. The matter does not rest there. The D.I.G., Magadh Range got a written report from the petitioners and directed the City Dy. S.P. to look into the matter at once and to report. This endorsement is dated 10.6.2000. The City Dy. S.P. pursuant to this direction has enquired into the matter and found that the allegation of the petitioners regarding commission of offence is true. After examining as many as eleven witnesses the City Dy. S.P. has found that the factum of allegation was correct and, as such, he directed the officer-in-charge, Kotwali police station, Gaya to take necessary action. This report is dated 30.8.2000. The City Dy. S.P. who is respondent no. After examining as many as eleven witnesses the City Dy. S.P. has found that the factum of allegation was correct and, as such, he directed the officer-in-charge, Kotwali police station, Gaya to take necessary action. This report is dated 30.8.2000. The City Dy. S.P. who is respondent no. 7, has not explained reasons for delay in submitting the report, when admittedly D.I.G. Magadh range on 10.6.2000 itself directed him to make an enquiry. Moreover, there is no statement in the counter affidavit denying the allegation of the petitioner that respondent no. 8 had refused to lodge the First Information Report. It is not their case that the statements of the petitioners are either false or incorrect. 12. In the facts and circumstances stated above, I am of the view that officer- in-charge, Kotwali police station, Gaya and City Dy. S.P. Gaya, respondent no. 7 have failed to perform their statutory duty in not lodging the first information report on the written report submitted by the petitioners and thereby have failed to discharge their statutory obligation. 13. Under these circumstances, this Court has no option but to direct the D.I.G. Magadh Range, Gays, respondent no. 5 to immediately direct the Superintendent of Police, Gaya to register the case and to investigate into the matter as provided under Section 154 (3) of the Code. The respondent no. 5 is further directed to initiate departmental proceeding against respondent no. 8 forthwith for his conduct which has resulted in utter violation of mandatory provisions of law. It is needless to say that respondent no. 5 will take such step in accordance with law which will be an eye opener to other police personnel under his control. 14. In the result, this application is allowed with the aforesaid observations and directions. 15. Let a copy of this order be immediately sent through FAX to Respondents no. 4 and 5 on cost being deposited by the petitioners by tomorrow.