Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 1454 (PNJ)

Pratap Singh v. State Of Haryana

2008-08-25

AJAI LAMBA

body2008
Judgment Ajai Lamba, J. 1. This petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeks directions to the respondents to have an investigation conducted by the Central Bureau of Investigation (for short, CBI) into the causes of death of Rohtash in police custody at Police Station Hodal of 17.04.2007 on the basis of complaint made to the Superintendent of police, Dehat, Palwal. 2. The sequence of events given out in the petition leading to the death of Rohtash are contained in Para 3(1) to 3 (ix). The contents read as under :- "3. xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx (i) That on 17.04.2007 at 11.30 a.m. the deceased Rohtash, son of the petitioner R/o Village Bancharva Distt. Hodal while driving a Maruti Car collided with one Auto near Hasanpur Chowk. According to the eye witnesses, on account of the arguments that ensued between the deceased and the Auto Driver, the police was informed and traffic constable Beer Singh along with two police men came to the spot and the deceased was beaten in the presence of people who had gathered there and taken away by the police. (ii) The deceased was taken to the office of DCP Hodal, Mr. Virendra Vij. The petitioner rushed to DCPs office and saw that when his, Rohtash (deceased) protested about unnecessary beating and the high handedness of the police constables the DSP was furious and he started to beat up the deceased in front of the petitioner. According to the eye witness who were present in the Tehsil premises, it being a market day, they witnessed the brutal manner in which the police officers beat up the deceased and the DSP Virendra Vij dragged the deceased to Tehsil premises. There the DSP with constable Beer Singh and some policemen beat the deceased using their feet, fists as well as lathis and danda. Thereafter the son of the petitioner writing in pain and in almost unconscious condition, was taken to P.S. Hodal. (iii) As per the version of the police officers which emerged from the inquiry conducted by the Magistrate DD No. 6 was registered at P.S. Hodal on 17.04.2007 at 11.30 a.m. pursuant to a complaint made by Jamaluddin S/o Hurmat Khan, R/o Village Raniyata. The said complaint alleged to have been registered by the SHO Krishan Kumar S.I., P.S. Hodal. (iii) As per the version of the police officers which emerged from the inquiry conducted by the Magistrate DD No. 6 was registered at P.S. Hodal on 17.04.2007 at 11.30 a.m. pursuant to a complaint made by Jamaluddin S/o Hurmat Khan, R/o Village Raniyata. The said complaint alleged to have been registered by the SHO Krishan Kumar S.I., P.S. Hodal. (iv) The Petitioner followed them to the P.S. Hodal where he was informed by the Reader to make arrangements for the sureties for his son. The petitioner want back to arrange for sureties. (v) That as per the roznamcha maintained in the police station DD No. 27 dated 17.04.2007, ASJ Liyaqat Ali registered a case against Rohtash (the deceased) under section 107/151 Cr.P.C. and his arrest has been shown at 9.15 p.m. (vi) As per the version of the police when the cook Naresh Kumar went to the lock up to give food to the deceased/accused Rohtash at 10.10 p.m. he found the deceased Rohtash hanging from the iron garter using the cover of the gadda. Naresh informed this incident to Jan Mahammad MHC, HC Rajesh Kumar and ASI Liyaquat Ali. They also went there and saw accused/deceased hanging. xx xx xx xx (vii) That on 17.04.2007 at 11.30 p.m. after an unexplained delay of one hour 20 minutes the SI/SHO Liyakat Ali for informed the magistrate Sh. Amrit Singh Chalia about the custodial death of Rohtash (vide DD No. 30). The ld. magistrate reached P.S. Hodal at 1 a.m. (early morning) on 18.04.2007. Thereafter the photographer was called who took photograph of the place of incident and of deceased. (viii) The petitioner too was asked to come to the police station where he was told by the police that his son has committed suicide by hanging himself. (ix) That on 18.04.2007. at 9.20 a.m. post-mortem was conducted. The report shows that "death in this case is due to hanging. Injuries are ante mortem, fresh in nature and caused by blunt force impact." 3. Contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, on the basis of pleadings in the petition is that the police authorities wanted this matter to be disposed of as a case of suicide without even conducting an investigation as proved under the Code of Criminal Procedure. 4. Contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, on the basis of pleadings in the petition is that the police authorities wanted this matter to be disposed of as a case of suicide without even conducting an investigation as proved under the Code of Criminal Procedure. 4. So as to indicate that thorough investigation is required, it has been pointed out that there is no material on record as to the height of iron garter; there was no stool or chair in the lock-up room which could have been used in committing suicide. Much emphasis has been laid on the report given by Shri Amrit Singh Chalia, Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Palwal, in regard to the incident, who reached the Police Station, Hodal, at about 1.00 A.M. during the intervening night of 17/18.4.2007. 5. Learned counsel has further contended that there are serious discrepancies in the post mortem report and injuries noticed by the Magistrate during enquiry, it being death in police custody. It has been asserted that it is the statutory duty of the Station House Officer of the concerned police station to register FIR under the provision of Section 154 Cr.P.C. in case information relating to commission of cognizable offence is given. It has been contended that only a suspicion surrounding the death of Rohtash was required to be shown which has been done with ample supporting material, however, the authorities have failed in their duties to act as per their legal obligations. 6. It seems that the petitioner went to the Station House Officer, Police Station, Hodal, time and again for recording of an FIR as a suspicion had been raised that death of Rohtash was as a result of homicidal injuries, however, FIR was not lodged. The petitioner approached the senior officers of the police and even made an application to the CBI, however, FIR was not registered and investigation has not been conducted as is required by law. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent-State has contended that enquiry was entrusted to the police officers and no fault on the part of the police officials could be traced in the death of Rohtash. 8. As per the reply filed on behalf of respondent Nos. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent-State has contended that enquiry was entrusted to the police officers and no fault on the part of the police officials could be traced in the death of Rohtash. 8. As per the reply filed on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 to 3 by the Superintendent of Police, Faridabad, it has been pleaded that Rohtash (deceased) as well as the petitioner are having criminal background and are involved in many criminal offences. The details of FIRs have been given. 9. In Para 3 of the preliminary submissions, it has been pleaded that State Crime Branch, Haryana, has been asked to conduct enquiry regarding the incident on the complaint of the petitioner and regular departmental enquiries are also being conduct into the conduct of Virender Kumar Vij, Deputy Superintendent of police; Krishna Kumar, Inspector; Liyakat Ali, Assistant Sub Inspector; and Shankar, Constable. Till the completion of enquiries, there is no requirement of transfer of the investigation to the CBI or any other agency. 10. In regard to the incident of 17.4.2007 it has been pleaded that one person Jamaluddin alongwith his two daughters namely Afseena and Maman was standing at Hassanpur Chowk, G.T. Road, Hodal, waiting for conveyance for going to Mathura. Maruti car driven by Rohtash who was accompanied by three persons hit Afseena intentionally. When an objection was raised, Rohtash and his companions alighted from the car and started giving beatings to Jamaluddin. Rajbir and Hari Charan, who were standing nearby, tried to intervene. Rohtash and his companions gave beating to them also. Rajbir and Hari Charan also suffered injuries. Another person Pehluddin intervened, otherwise more injuries would have been caused by Rohtash and his companions. 11. It has further been pleaded that in the meantime, Bir Singh, EHC Traffic, on traffic duty, came and intervened to maintain law and order. Jamaluddin, Rajbir and Hari Chand went to the police station and got registered complaint vide DDR No. 6 dated 17.4.2007. The injured were sent to CHC, Hodal. After medical examination, MLRs were collected. Rajbir suffered three injuries. Hari Charan suffered three injuries and Jamaljuddin also suffered injuries, however, the details have not been given. After verifying the facts, Liyaqat Ali, Assistant Sub Inspector, arrested Rohtash under Section 107/151 Cr.P.C. as preventive action so as to maintain law and order and to avoid breach of peace. After medical examination, MLRs were collected. Rajbir suffered three injuries. Hari Charan suffered three injuries and Jamaljuddin also suffered injuries, however, the details have not been given. After verifying the facts, Liyaqat Ali, Assistant Sub Inspector, arrested Rohtash under Section 107/151 Cr.P.C. as preventive action so as to maintain law and order and to avoid breach of peace. He was kept in police lock-up at about 9.15 P.M. At about 10.10 P.M., when Naresh Kumar, cook went to give food to Rohtash, he found Rohtash hanging with a garter on the roof with the help of Rajai. 12. It has been pleaded that the proceedings that are required to be conducted in cases of custodial death have been conducted. The Judicial Magistrate has stated that the police has not abetted the deceased to commit suicide and therefore, no fault of the police officials was found. The petition accordingly is not maintainable. 13. I have considered the pleadings and contentions of learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record. 14. The report submitted by the Magistrate has been placed on record as Annexure P-4. Persual of the report brings out that Pratap Singh, the petitioner, gave his statement which was recorded on Oath, that he was an eye witness to the incident. In regard to the allegations against police of causing the death of Rohtash, it has been noticed that Rohtash had indulged in some kind of dispute due to which he was taken to the DSP office by the police officials present at Hassanpur Chowk. Rohtash was caught hold of by the police and on verbal instructions of the DSP, he was mercilessly beaten up in the presence of a number of persons. While giving beatings, the DSP made allegation that he was trying to kidnap the girls. Being the father, the petitioner could not see his son receiving beatings and he went to his shop. He asked his friends namely, Ramjit of village Sondh and Sahun, Ex-Sarpanch of village Dhad, to be present there. After about 45 minutes, the friends came and told that on account of some dispute, Rohtash had been arrested and was beaten up by the police. Now he came to know that his son had died in police custody. The Magistrate questioned the petitioner as to what action he wanted, he deposed that guilty should be punished. 15. After about 45 minutes, the friends came and told that on account of some dispute, Rohtash had been arrested and was beaten up by the police. Now he came to know that his son had died in police custody. The Magistrate questioned the petitioner as to what action he wanted, he deposed that guilty should be punished. 15. Jaipal Singh, another witness, stated that death of Rohtash had been caused due to merciless beatings given by the police. Likewise, the statements of police officials were taken in regard to the incident. Shri Amrit Singh Chalia, Judicial Magistrate, Ist class, Palwal visited the police lock-up alongwith the petitioner. The lock-up was opened and Rohtash was found in hanging position. Photographs were taken, cloth was cut and body of Rohtash was laid on the floor. Injuries were also on the left eye and there were also two long injuries on the right leg of Rohtash (deceased). There were scratches on the right arm also. Inquest was prepared at Police Station, Hodal and a letter was addressed to the Civil Surgeon for constituting a board for conducting post mortem. 16. The findings returned by the Magistrate are as under :- "On examining the entire facts and circumstance of the case coupled with the statements recorded by me of the father and relatives of the accused/deceased Rohtash as well as officials of the police Station. Hodal i.e SHO as well as the MHC and also considering the location for the police lock-up. I have reached at the conclusion that the alleged incident/fight took place around 11.30 a.m. and accused/deceased Rohtash was caught hold at Hassanpur Chowk by the police officials. Thereafter, he was taken to the DSP Office. The allegations of the father as well as uncle of the accused/deceased Rohtash are that accused/deceased Rohtash was mercilessly beaten up in the office of DSP. DSP was very much present and he was within the knowledge of the alleged incident. The police kept on waiting and finally he was arrested at 9.15 p.m. on 17.4.07 by ASI Liyakat Ali. The delay caused by the police officials for getting him arrest, is totally unexplained. It is also even beyond imagination that for such a petty offence, why the police had not arrested the accused/deceased Rohtash immediately and produce him before the competent authority. The delay caused by the police officials for getting him arrest, is totally unexplained. It is also even beyond imagination that for such a petty offence, why the police had not arrested the accused/deceased Rohtash immediately and produce him before the competent authority. The police had delayed the arrest of the accused/deceased Rohtash and kept him in illegal custody till 9.15 p.m. 2.It is also pertinent to discuss the Roznamcha maintained in the Police Station at the relevant time. D.D. No. 6 is showing entry regarding conflict with the accused/deceased Rohtash. D.D. No. 24 is showing the departure of ASI Liyakat Ali regarding investigation of rapat No. 6 D.D. No. 27 is showing the arrest of accused at 9.15 p.m. DD No. 28 is showing the arrival of ASI Liyakat Ali in FIR No. 80 dated 17.04.07. D.D. No. 29 is having intimation regarding custodial death of accused/deceased Rohtash to S.H.O. at 10.10. p.m. D.D. No. 30 is showing the message given by the SI/SHO to the higher authorities at 11.30 p.m. It is also relevant to mention here that the movement of Liyakat Ali is also showing the rapat roznamcha but his signatures have not been appearing on any of the D.D. Intimation of custodial death was given at 10.10 p.m. to the SI/SHO, but he has informed to the higher authorities at 11.30 p.m. i.e. after lapse of one hour 20 minutes. The all D.D. entries are clearly showing manipulation to cover up the misdeeds of the police officials present in the Police Station. When the D.D. No. 27 is showing arrest of the accused/deceased Rohtash by Liyakat Ali then the very next D.D. Entry No. 28 is showing his arrival, whereas there is no departure of ASI Liyakat Ali from 9.15 p.m. to 10.10 p.m. These entries are totally fictitious entries and certainly create suspicion and doubt regarding the role of the officials of the police and also confirm the above mentioned observations. It is also remained unexplained that when the information regarding death of accused/deceased Rohtash was given to the SI/SHO at 10.10. p.m., THEN WHY HE HAS TAKEN TOO MUCH TIME TO INFORM THE HIGHER OFFICIALS. From these aspects also, role of the police, who is headed by SI/SHO Krishan Kumar, is liable to be criticized and also gives a strong suspicion of foul play. 3. p.m., THEN WHY HE HAS TAKEN TOO MUCH TIME TO INFORM THE HIGHER OFFICIALS. From these aspects also, role of the police, who is headed by SI/SHO Krishan Kumar, is liable to be criticized and also gives a strong suspicion of foul play. 3. In view of the above lapses on the part of the police officials, I intend to hold that the accused/deceased Rohtash was remained in illegal custody. The delay in informing to the higher officials regarding the custodial death is unexplained, therefore, the Home Department, Haryana Government must initiate departmental enquiry against the erring official. 4. Regarding other allegation of torture in the police custody, it is established that the accused was tortured in the police custody due to which injuries on his left eye as well as on has rightly leg were visible. The fact of police custody and merciless beating has been seen himself by the father of accused/deceased Rohtash as he has stated on oath while giving his statement. Moreover when a person dies in police custody in an unnatural death and there were ante mortem injuries on his person. It is for the police to explain how he received the injuries. The fact of injuries has also been confirmed in the post mortem report has conducted by the Board, therefore, I do not want to make any question mark on the finding given by the Medical Board. Finally, I conclude that the torture of the accused/deceased Rohtash in the police custody is not ruled out. However police officials have not abetted the accused/deceased Rohtash to commit it suicide by hanging." 17. Perusal of the above would indicate that it has been observed by the Magistrate that an incident of fight had taken place at 11.30 A.M., whereafter the deceased was taken to DSP Office. There are allegations of giving merciless beatings to Rohtash in the office of DSP. The DSP was in the know of the incident, however, these facts being there, the police waited for more than 10 hours till 9.15 P.M. so as to arrest Rohtash. The delay from 11.30 A.M. to 9.15 P.M. is not explained. For a petty offence, as alleged by the police officials, Rohtash could very well have been produced before the competent authority. The delay caused in arrest of Rohtash and thereafter keeping him in police custody finds no answer. 18. The delay from 11.30 A.M. to 9.15 P.M. is not explained. For a petty offence, as alleged by the police officials, Rohtash could very well have been produced before the competent authority. The delay caused in arrest of Rohtash and thereafter keeping him in police custody finds no answer. 18. Various entries made in the daily diary reports have been found by the Magistrate to be a cover up of the deeds of the police officials present there and a result of manipulation. It has been concluded in Para 2 of the portion reproduced hereinabove, that the conduct of the police "gives a strong suspicion of foul play". 19. It has concluded by the Magistrate that Rohtash was kept in illegal custody. It has also been concluded that Rohtash was tortured in police custody on account of which he received injuries on various parts of his body. 20. In Para 4, it has been observed that " moreover, when a person dies in police custody in an unnatural death and there were ante mortem injuries on his person, it is for the police to explain how he received the injuries". At the end, it has been stated that torture of Rohtash in police custody cannot be ruled out, however, police officials have not abetted the suicide of Rohtash by hanging. 21. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on Ajab Singh & Another v. State of U.P. and others, 2000(2) RCR(Criminal) 250 : (2000)3 Supreme Court Cases 521 wherein it has been held in Para 8 :- "8. If we may be permitted to use the same words, what appears to us to be a concocted story is that set out in the respondents affidavits. They are, to our mind, desperate attempts to avoid responsibility for acts committed while Rishipal was in judicial custody. There can be no doubt that the respondents have not investigated the cause of death of Rishipal as they ought to have done or that, at any rate, they have not placed all relevant material before this court. They have attempted to pull the wool over the eyes of this court. We do not appreciate the death of persons in judicial custody, When such deaths occur, it is not only to the public at large that those holding custody are responsible; they are responsible also to the courts under whose orders they hold such custody. They have attempted to pull the wool over the eyes of this court. We do not appreciate the death of persons in judicial custody, When such deaths occur, it is not only to the public at large that those holding custody are responsible; they are responsible also to the courts under whose orders they hold such custody. It is appropriate, therefore, that the cause of Rishipals death should be investigated by the Central Bureau of Investigation. CBI shall register a case and conduct an investigation into the circumstances of Rishipals death. CBI shall forthwith appoint an officer to receive from the respondents all records relating to Rishipal and the respondents shall immediately hand over such records to such officer. The investigation shall be completed expeditiously and a copy of the investigation report shall be filed in this court. The Registry shall forward a copy of this judgment and order to the Director CBI." 22. The issue as to the duty of the police to register FIR has been considered by this court in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 21542- M of 2004 (Mohinder Singh v. State of Punjab & others) decided on 18.10.2006, wherein, after taking note of various judgments viz. Superintendent of Police, CBI v. Tapan Kr. Singh, 2003(2) RCR(Criminal) 880 : 2004(1) Apex Criminal 186 : 2003 Criminal Law Journal 2322, Ramesh Kumari v. State (NCT of Delhi) and others, 2006(2) RCR(Criminal) 197 : 2006(1) Apex Criminal 541 : (2006)2 Supreme Court Cases 677, Mohindro v. State of Punjab and Others, (2001)9 Supreme Court Cases 581, Bhupinder Kaur v. State of Punjab through Home Secretary, Punjab, 1997(2) RCR(Criminal) 244, Manjit Singh v. Senior Suprintendent of police, 1997(2) RCR(Criminal) 412, State of Haryana and Others v. Bhajan Lal & Others, 1991(1) RCR(Criminal) 383 : AIR 1992 SC 604, Balwant Singh v. State of Punjab, 1998(2) RCR(Criminal) 454, Amarjit Kaur v. State of Punjab, 1996(3) RCR(Criminal) 628, Bachni Devi v. State of Haryana, 1996(3) RCR(Criminal) 597, Palwinder Singh v. State of Punjab, 1997(1) RCR(Criminal) 639, Satish Kumar Goel v. State, 2001(1) RCR(Criminal) 25, the following has been concluded : "The law as settled in Palwinder Singh case (supra) clearly shows that such enquiry is not contemplated even under Rule 24.4 of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934. The rule lost its statutory force in view of the enactment of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and provisions of Section 154 of the Code as interpreted. The Legislature had purposely thought it fit to employ the word `information without qualifying the said word with the prefix `reasonable or `credible. Reference may also be made to The King Emperor v. Khwaja Nazir Ahmed, 1945 Criminal Law Journal 413 (Privy Council). The relevant portion of the judgment reads as under :- "In any case, the receipt and recording of an information report is not a condition precedent to the setting in motion of a criminal investigation. No doubt in the great majority of cases, criminal prosecutions are undertaken as a result of information received and recorded in this way, but their Lordships see no reason why the police, if in possession through their own knowledge or by means of credible, through informal, intelligence which genuinely leads them to the belief that a cognizable offence has been committed, should not of their own motion undertake any investigation into the truth of the matters alleged. Section 127 of the Cr.P.C. when directing that a Police Officer, who has reason to suspect from information or otherwise that an offence which he is empowered to investigate under section 156 has been committed, shall proceed to investigate the facts and circumstances, supports this view. In truth, the provision as to an information report (commony called a first information report) are enacted for other reasons. Its object is to obtain early information of alleged criminal activity, to record the circumstances before there is time for them to be forgotten or embellished, and it has to be remembered that the report can be put in evidence when the informant is examined if it is desired to do so. The early recoding of information is also required as with the delay in recording of information, injustice is likely to be caused as the evidence relating to the incident could be lost, destroyed or tampered with. In fact, Section 173 Cr.P.C. itself provides that every investigation under Chapter XII should be completed without unnecessary delay. In the various judgments referred to above the issue has been dealt with. It has been held that the FIR need not be an encyclopedia. In fact, Section 173 Cr.P.C. itself provides that every investigation under Chapter XII should be completed without unnecessary delay. In the various judgments referred to above the issue has been dealt with. It has been held that the FIR need not be an encyclopedia. What is of significance is that the information given must disclose the commission of a cognizable offence and the information so lodged must provide a basis for the police officer to suspect the commission of a cognizable offence. The Police officer, at this stage is not required to be convinced or satisfied that a cognizable offence has been committed. If he has reasons to suspect, on the basis of information received that a cognizable offence may have been committed, he is bound to record the information and conduct an investigation. At this stage, it is not necessary for him to satisfy himself about the truthfulness of the information or otherwise. That stage comes only after a complete investigation does not furnish all the details, he must find out those details in the course of investigation. The information given disclosing the commission of a cognizable offence, only sets in motion the investigative machinery with a view to collect all necessary evidence and thereafter to take action in accordance with law. Genuineness or credibility of the information is not a condition precedent for registration of a case. In case the Officer in charge of a police station refuses to exercise the jurisdiction vested in him and to register a case on the information of a cognizable offence reported, he clearly violates the statutory duty cast upon him. It is only after registration of the FIR and investigation into the matter, if no case is made out. Investigating Agency is at liberty file a cancellation report. In case the allegations made in the FIR are prima facie found to be correct, then challan is required to be filed as per the provisions of Section 173 Cr.P.C. The police cannot prejudge the issue and refuse to register a case because it feels that on merits, perhaps allegations made by the complainant are not true. Thus, the law as settled by the Honble Supreme Court leaves no occasion for the police to conduct an enquiry if the information given provides a basis for the police officer to suspect the commission of a cognizable offence. Thus, the law as settled by the Honble Supreme Court leaves no occasion for the police to conduct an enquiry if the information given provides a basis for the police officer to suspect the commission of a cognizable offence. In the case of Satish Kumar (supra) the Division Bench of Delhi High Court while relying on the judgment rendered by the Honble Supreme Court in the case of V.C. Shukla v. State (Delhi Administration), 1680 Supp SCC 249 : 1980 SCC (Crl) 849 has held that when a first information report is filed before a police officer, the law does not require that the officer must hear the accused before recording it or submitting a charge-sheet to the Court. In a judgment rendered by the Honble Supreme Court in State of Bihar and another v. Shri P.P Sharma and another, 1991(2) SCT 397 : AIR 1991 Supreme Court 1260, the essentials of investigation are reflected. It has been held that the duty of the Investigation Officer is not merely to bolster up the prosecution case with such evidence as may enable the Court to record a conviction, but to bring out the real unvarnished truth. The Investigation Officer is the arm of the law and plays pivotal role in the dispensation of criminal justice and maintenance of law and order. The duty of the Investigating Officer, therefore, is to ascertain facts to extract truth from half-truth or garbled version, connecting the chain of events. It is his duty to ferret out the truth. It is never his business to fabricate the evidence to connect the suspect of the commission of the crime. Trustworthiness of the police is the primary insurance. It is undoubted that no one should unnecessarily be harassed or face an ordeal of criminal trial unless sufficient materials are collected during the investigation disclosing the crime committed. The Investigating Officer is not to act on a pre-conceived idea of guilt of the accused. The Investigating Officer is expected to gather the entire material so that the truth or falsehood of the accusation may be found by the Court at the trial. It therefore follows that the stand point of the accused should also be considered to unearth the true facts. The Investigating Officer is expected to gather the entire material so that the truth or falsehood of the accusation may be found by the Court at the trial. It therefore follows that the stand point of the accused should also be considered to unearth the true facts. Section 182 IPC provides the remedy to the public servant, in case a complainant gives to any public servant any information which he knows or believes to be false. It shall be open to the police official to take recourse, if the facts and circumstance disclose commission of offence under Section 182 IPC, as provided by the provisions contained in Section 195 Cr.P.C." 23. The law, as settled by the Honble Supreme Court and this court in the judgments relied upon while dealing with the case of Mohinder Singh (supra) clearly indicates that any information disclosing commission of cognizable offence to an officer incharge of a police station satisfies the requirements of Section 154(1) Cr.P.C., the said police officer cannot refuse to register a case on the ground that information is not reliable or credible. On the other hand, he is bound to enter the substance thereof in the prescribed form and register a case on the basis of such information [refer to Palwinder Singh v. State of Punjab, 1997(1) RCR(Criminal) 639]. 24. The facts as they emerge in the present case clearly indicate that on 17/18.4.2007 itself, the petitioner had shown suspicion that it was police officials who in their custody had caused the death of Rohtash. The report of the Magistrate as reproduced above indicates manipulations on the part of the police officials in entries made in the daily diary reports. The factum of giving beatings to Rohtash has been established by way of the report. While the arrest of Rohtash could be shown during day times, it was delayed till after 9.00 P.M. - for what reason, only investigation would tell and not the conclusion drawn by the police officials in their enquiry. The injuries received by Rohtash have been found ante mortem in nature and allegations made by his father, an eye witness, were sufficient circumstances to put the law under Chapter XII of Cr.P.C., into motion. It was not done and I have to observe that it is because the accused were the police officials and they did not want to proceed against police personnel of District Faridabad. It was not done and I have to observe that it is because the accused were the police officials and they did not want to proceed against police personnel of District Faridabad. 25. Contentions of learned counsel for the respondent-State that no opportunity was given to the police by the Magistrate; delay had been explained; entry had been made in DDR, are not acceptable. The scope of mandate of Section 154 Cr.P.C. is totally lost on the police officials. An information that discloses suspicion of commission of cognizable offence is required to be taken note of under Section 154 Cr.P.C. and FIR is required to be lodged. In the facts and circumstance, such as the present case, the stand of the respondent-State is not acceptable. A suspicion had been raised by the petitioner who gave his statement to police that Rohtash had died in police custody and also that there were injuries which were sufficient reason to lodge FIR and proceed with investigation. Only investigation would determine whether the death of Rohtash was a result of suicide or it was on account of other factors including homicidal/lynching. 26. Under these circumstance, investigation could be conducted only under Chapter XII of the Cr.P.C. and departmental or internal enquiry, as conducted, cannot be a substitute for investigation under the Code of Criminal Procedure. The purpose of filling of final report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. is that the report comes for consideration before the Magistrate and in case a cancellation report is submitted, the complainant has the option to file an application for further investigation, protest petition or a complaint as the case may be. The Magistrate may per se not accept the cancellation report. 27. It is surprising that despite there being consistency in law in regard to the legal obligation, all this time there has been resistance on the part of the respondents which indicates failure on the part of the respondents in performing their statutory duties. 28. On 11.8.2008 when the matter was taken up for hearing, the Director General of Police, Haryana was asked to file reply in the context of law and findings recorded by the Magistrate. Reply has not been filed and further adjournment is prayed for. 29. 28. On 11.8.2008 when the matter was taken up for hearing, the Director General of Police, Haryana was asked to file reply in the context of law and findings recorded by the Magistrate. Reply has not been filed and further adjournment is prayed for. 29. I however find that considered delay has been caused in view of the inaction on the part of the respondents, and therefore, there is no occasion to adjourn the case. The material available on the record clearly indicates that it was the duty of the respondent to register FIR and conduct investigation. The respondent have clearly failed to perform their duties. The petition is allowed. It is directed that FIR would be lodged and investigation would be undertaken by an IPS officer of the Crime Branch. Investigation be concluded preferably within 90 days from the date of registration of the FIR.