Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 706 (ALL)

RAKESH RAI v. STATE OF U. P.

2002-05-17

R.K.DASH, S.R.SINGH

body2002
R. K. DASS, J. ( 1 ) PETITIONER, accused in Case Crime No. 387 of 2001, under Sections 420/467/468, I. P. C. . Police station Kotwali Sadar, district Fatehpur, has filed this writ petition seeking quashing of the first information report of the said case. ( 2 ) BEFORE adverting to the factual matrix of the case, it is necessary to allude to judicial pronouncements as to the scope and ambit of power of Interference of the Court in the matter of investigation which is within the domain of the police. ( 3 ) IN State of W. B. v. Swapan Kumar Guha, AIR 1982 SC 949 , the Court held : "once an offence is disclosed an investigation into the offence must necessarily follow in the interest of justice. If, however, no offence is disclosed, an investigation cannot be permitted, as any investigation, in the absence of any offence being disclosed will result in unnecessary harassment to a party, whose liberty and property may be put to jeopardy for nothing. The liberty and property of any individual are sacred and sacrosanct and the Court zealously guards them and protects them. An investigation is carried on for the purpose of gathering necessary materials for establishing and proving an offence which is disclosed. When an offence is disclosed, a properInvestigation in the interests of Justice becomes necessary to collect materials for establishing the offence and for bringing the offender to book. In the absence of a proper investigation in a case where an offence is disclosed, the offender may succeed in escaping from the consequences and the offender may go unpunished to the detriment of the cause of Justice and the society at large. Justice requires that a person who commits an offence has to be brought to book and must be punished for the same. If the Court interferes with the proper investigation in a case where an offence has been disclosed, the offence will go unpunished to the serious detriment of the welfare of the society and the cause of the justice suffers. It is on the basis of this principle that the Court normally does not interfere with the investigation of a case where an offence has been disclosed. " ( 4 ) IN the oft-quoted decision, in the case of State of Haryana and Ors. v. Ch. Bhajan Lal and ors. It is on the basis of this principle that the Court normally does not interfere with the investigation of a case where an offence has been disclosed. " ( 4 ) IN the oft-quoted decision, in the case of State of Haryana and Ors. v. Ch. Bhajan Lal and ors. , 1992 SC 604, following observation was made : "we also give a note of caution to the effect that the power of quashing a criminal proceeding should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases ; that the Court will not be justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegation made in the F. I. R. or the complaint and that the extraordinary or inherent powers do not confer an arbitrary Jurisdiction on the Court to act according to its whim or caprice. " ( 5 ) IN certain cases, argument was advanced before the Supreme Court that since allegation made in the first information report or the complaint has civil consequences, criminal proceedings should not be allowed to continue. While not accepting such contention, the Court held that merely because an act has civil profile, it is not sufficient to denude it of its criminal outfit. See rajesh Bajaj v. State NCT of Delhi, 1999 (1) ACrr 710 (SC) : 1999 AIR SCW 881, Vitoori pradeep Kumar v. Kaisula Dharmaiah and Ors. , 2000 (3) ACrr 2412 (SC) : JT 2000 (10) SC 335 and Trisuns Chemical Industry v. Rajesh Agarwal and Ors. , 1999 (3) ACrr 2161 (SC): (1999) 8 scc 686 . ( 6 ) IN view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court as aforesaid, we shall now refer to the facts of the present case to find whether it would be legal and proper for the Court to interfere with the investigation and quash the F. I. R. as prayed for by the petitioner. The allegations as contained in the F. I. R. , copy whereof at Annexure-1, is that plot Nos. 2512 and 1515 situated at fatehpur stood recorded in the revenue record in the name of Krishna Kumari, mother of the informant, but the petitioner in connivance with the Lekhpal got the said record corrected in his name and thereby committed forgery. The allegations as contained in the F. I. R. , copy whereof at Annexure-1, is that plot Nos. 2512 and 1515 situated at fatehpur stood recorded in the revenue record in the name of Krishna Kumari, mother of the informant, but the petitioner in connivance with the Lekhpal got the said record corrected in his name and thereby committed forgery. On a complaint being lodged, the Sub-Divisional magistrate by his order dated 7. 8. 2001 directed to delete the name of the petitioner and insert the name of Krishna Kumari, the mother of informant in whose name the land originally stood recorded. ( 7 ) THE case of the petitioner is that mutation of the aforesaid two plots has been effected in his name by the order of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate. But concealing this fact, the informant obtained an ex parte order from the very same authority to delete his name from the mutation register and aggrieved thereby, he filed Civil Miscellaneous Writ Petition No. 38085 of 2001, and the Court by interim order has stayed operation of the aforesaid ex parte order. This being the factual position, it is urged, the informant has the remedy to challenge the mutation order before the competent authority or alternatively, he can move the civil court for declaration of his right and interest in respect of the land in question, but he cannot maintain a criminal proceeding. Moreover, the allegations made in the F. I. R. do not make out any offence necessitating investigation by the police and, therefore, the impugned F. I. R. should be quashed. ( 8 ) THERE is no dispute that land covered under two plots in dispute originally stood recorded in the name of Krishna Kumari in the revenue record and subsequently, was corrected in the name of the petitioner. According to the petitioner, it was so done under the orders of the revenue authority. He, however, does not plead as to how he acquired the said land, inasmuch as whether by sale or otherwise. In view of absence of such averment this Court by order dated 15. 1. 2002 directed him to file copy of the mutation application in order to ascertain as to how he acquired the land. Pursuant thereto, he filed supplementary affidavit annexing copy of the mutation application along with copy of unregistered document which he termed as sale letter. In view of absence of such averment this Court by order dated 15. 1. 2002 directed him to file copy of the mutation application in order to ascertain as to how he acquired the land. Pursuant thereto, he filed supplementary affidavit annexing copy of the mutation application along with copy of unregistered document which he termed as sale letter. In paragraph 2 of the affidavit, it is stated that he sought for mutation of the land in question on the basis of the sale letter dated 9. 10. 1972, executed in favour of his father late Lakshmi Shanker srivastava. A glimpse of the said letter S. A. 2 would reveal that executants were Mani Rampal singh and Dharmendra Singh, who it is stated, by virtue of special power-of-attorney, sold the same for a sum of rupees 45,000. No special power-of-attorney, if any, executed by the owner of the land has been filed nor it is the case of the petitioner that such document was executed by the owner. Besides, on the basis of so-called sale letter, petitioners father cannot be said to have acquired any title since it is not a document of sale. In that view of the matter on the basis of the said document, interest of the recorded owner in the land in question cannot be said to have been extinguished. It is, therefore, imperative on the part of the police whether correction in the revenue record was made by the petitioner in connivance, with Lekhpal as alleged by the informant or the same was done pursuant to any order passed by the revenue authority. Moreover, probe is also necessary to find whether the so-called sale letter was really executed by mahi Rampal Singh and another or it has been created by the petitioner to save him from criminal charge. ( 9 ) REGARD being had to the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered opinion that allegations made in the F. I. R. taken as a whole reveal commission of a cognizable offence which needs to be investigated by the police. We are, therefore, not inclined to quash the said f. I. R. in exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction. ( 10 ) IN the result criminal writ petition fails and the same is dismissed. .