Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 358 (MP)

Vikram Singh Bhadoria v. State Of M. P.

2011-03-17

S.C.SHARMA

body2011
JUDGMENT ( 1. ) THE petitioner before this Court has filed this present petition being aggrieved by charge-sheet dated 8-12-2007 issued by Inspector General of Police, Bhopal. ( 2. ) PETITIONER's contention is that he is serving the Home Department (Police) on the post of Inspector and while he was posted at Police Station, Narsinghgarh (Distt. Rajgarh) he was directed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rajgarh to register first information report as per the provisions of section 156 (3) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Hereinafter referred to as the 'Cr.P.C.') and to investigate the matter. PETITIONER has further stated that as directed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, the first information report was registered immediately and as per the directions, the matter was investigated. PETITIONER has also stated that in compliance to the order passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, statements of complainant Geetabai and other witnesses namely Bansilal, Jalamsingh, Vijaysingh, Bapulal, Gokulprasad Patwari and others were recorded. PETITIONER has also stated that in the matter of investigation, instructions were also sought from Superintendent of Police, Rajgarh and thereafter a report was filed as directed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate. Petitioner has also stated that he has submitted his report on 7-8-2007 and the Chief Judicial Magistrate on 8-8-2007 has informed the petitioner as to how he has carried out the investigation, as certain offences registered against the accused persons were under the provisions of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and the competent authority to investigate such matter is a Sub Divisional Officer (Police). Petitioner has further stated that he has promptly informed the Chief Judicial Magistrate that he has registered the first information report and investigated the matter as he was directed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate and he has also requested the Chief Judicial Magistrate to peruse the provisions of sections 156 and 190 of Criminal Procedure Code. ( 3. ) PETITIONER has further stated that the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, thereafter issued a show cause notice to the petitioner on 18-8-2007 and in the show cause notice the Chief Judicial Magistrate sought an explanation from the petitioner as to why he has conducted the investigation in the matter and at the same time the Chief Judicial Magistrate has sought the petitioner's explanation for using derogatory words against the Chief Judicial Magistrate. ( 4. ( 4. ) PETITIONER's contention is that the Chief Judicial Magistrate has treated the request of the petitioner to refer to sections 156 and 190 of Criminal Procedure Code as contemptuous and derogatory to the Court. PETITIONER has further stated that thereafter the Chief Judicial Magistrate has directly written a letter to the Addl. Inspector General of Police (Administration) on 15-10-2007 for initiating action against the petitioner and thereafter Addl. Superintendent of Police, Rajgarh has sought an explanation of the petitioner and the petitioner did submit his explanation and has categorically stated therein that as he was directed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate to register the first information report and to conduct investigation, he has conducted the investigation. The petitioner has further stated that thereafter matter was forwarded to the State Government and a charge-sheet has been issued to the petitioner for holding a departmental enquiry under the provisions of MP Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966. The petitioner has prayed for quashing of the charge-sheet issued against him in the matter. A reply has been filed by the respondents and contention of the respondents is that the petitioner who was serving as Station House Officer, was not competent to investigate the crime in respect of the offence registered under the offence of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and by investigating the matter he has certainly committed misconduct and, therefore, the Disciplinary Authority is justified in issuing a charge-sheet to the petitioner. Respondents have also stated that the Chief Judicial Magistrate Shri A. K. Verma by order dated 3-7-2007 has directed investigation under section 156 (3) of Criminal Procedure Code on the basis of a complaint submitted by one Geetabai and in all fairness after registering the complaint, the matter should have been forwarded to the Sub Divisional Officer (Police) and the petitioner instead of forwarding the matter to the SDO (Police) in clear contravention to the provisions of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, himself has conducted the investigation, and therefore the charge-sheet has rightly been issued against him. ( 5. ( 5. ) LEARNED Government Advocate has also argued before this Court that the Chief Judicial Magistrate has not directed the petitioner to conduct the investigation and he was directed only to register the first information report and thereafter the matter should have been forwarded to the SDO (P) for investigation and therefore the petitioner by playing the role of Investigating Officer, has committed gross misconduct and therefore after conducting preliminary enquiry on the basis of a letter of Chief Judicial Magistrate, a charge-sheet has rightly been issued. Respondents have also stated that the petitioner will certainly be entitled an opportunity of hearing in the departmental enquiry pending against him and no case for interference is made out in the matter. Respondents have prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. ( 6. ) IT is pertinent to note that this Court vide order dated 7-1-2008 has also sought comments of the Chief Judicial Magistrate Mr. A. K. Verma through the District and Sessions Judge, Rajgarh for explaining his conduct that under what authority of law, the order for registering a FIR under section 156 (3) Criminal Procedure Code was passed on a private complaint though it was related for an offence under section 3(i)(x) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. A report has been received in the matter and the Chief Judicial Magistrate in his explanation has stated that the petitioner was directed to register the first information report and on his own he has conducted the investigation for which he was not competent to do so. It has also been stated that he has simply requested the Addl. Director General of Police for taking appropriate disciplinary proceedings in the interest of justice. ( 7. ) HEARD learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record. The matter is being disposed of at motion hearing stage with the consent of the parties. ( 8. ) IN the present case, the petitioner is being subjected to disciplinary proceedings on the basis of a letter dated 15-10-2007 issued by the then Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rajgarh. ) HEARD learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record. The matter is being disposed of at motion hearing stage with the consent of the parties. ( 8. ) IN the present case, the petitioner is being subjected to disciplinary proceedings on the basis of a letter dated 15-10-2007 issued by the then Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rajgarh. The Chief Judicial Magistrate in his letter dated 15-10-2007 has observed that petitioner being a Station House Officer, Narsinghgarh was directed to register the first information report and he has registered the first information report and also investigated the matter, though, he was not competent to investigate the matter keeping in view the provisions of the SC/ST Act, 1989. The C.J.M. in his letter also has categorically stated that a report was received from the Station House Officer, Narsinghgarh on 7-8-2007 and an endorsement was made on the report as to how the investigation was carried out by the SHO and the petitioner on the same report himself has made an endorsement that he has conducted the investigation on the instructions of the Chief Judicial Magistrate. The letter further reveals that the Chief Judicial Magistrate has formed an opinion that the petitioner has used derogatory words and has committed misconduct by informing the Court to peruse the provisions of sections 156 and 190 of Criminal Procedure Code. The letter further reveals that an opinion was also formed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate that petitioner has committed gross misconduct and in the opinion of the Court he was entitled for grave punishment after holding a departmental enquiry. This Court has carefully gone through the complaint filed by the complainant before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate and the Chief Judicial Magistrate on 3-7-2007 has directed the Station House Officer (the present petitioner) to take action under section 156(3) and to investigate the matter. The petitioner has submitted a detailed report and the noting of the Chief Judicial Magistrate in respect of the report submitted by the petitioner reads as under :- A show cause notice was issued to the petitioner and the relevant part of the show cause notice reads as under : The Chief Judicial Magistrate has formed an opinion in the matter that petitioner has committed misconduct by drawing his attention of the provisions of Criminal Procedure Code. This Court really fails to understand as to how the Chief Judicial Magistrate has formed an opinion for proceeding ahead against the petitioner and how the conduct of the petitioner on drawing the attention of the Court of CJM towards the provisions of Criminal Procedure Code amounts to contempt. In almost all Courts in various cases, counsel are drawing the attention of the Courts towards the statutory provisions on every day and by no stretch of imagination, the same can be termed as a misconduct or a contemptuous act. Not only this, the matter was not referred to the High Court for initiating the contempt proceedings and the C.J.M. has directly on the administrative side, issued a letter to the Addl. Inspector General of police for initiating a departmental enquiry against the petitioner. The Chief Judicial Magistrate has written a letter dated 15-10-2007 to the Police Department and the same reads as under :- ( 9. ) THE Competent Disciplinary Authority, based upon the letter of C.J.M. has conducted the fact finding enquiry and thereafter charge-sheet has been issued against the petitioner. This Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner has not committed any misconduct as he was directed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate himself to register the first information report and to investigate the matter and he has rightly done so by complying the direction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate. Not only this, in case the C.J.M. was of the opinion that the matter requires further investigation by the SDO, he should have forwarded the matter for investigation to the SDO without making an issue for conducting a departmental enquiry against the petitioner for no ryme or reason. ( 10. ) IN the present case the Chief Judicial Magistrate has directed the petitioner who was the Station House Officer at the relevant point of time to investigate the matter in spite of the fact that the complaint was in respect of the offences falling under the provisions of Scheduled Tribe/Scheduled Caste (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, section 201 of the Code of Criminal Procedure reads as under :- "201. Procedure by Magistrate not competent to take cognizance of the case:- If the complaint is made to a Magistrate who is not competent to take cognizance of the offence, he shall :- (a) if the complaint is in writing, return it for presentation to the proper Court with an endorsement to that effect; (b) If the complaint is not in writing, direct the complainant to the proper Court. The aforesaid statutory provisions of law makes it very clear that in case a complaint is made to a Magistrate who is not competent to take cognizance of the offence, he shall return the same for presentation to the proper Court with an endorsement to that effect. ( 11. ) IN the present case the Chief Judicial Magistrate was certainly not at all competent to take cognizance of the case and, therefore, he could not have directed the Station House Officer to conduct the investigation, as has been done in the matter. ( 12. ) RESULTANTLY, the action of the Chief Judicial Magistrate in directing the Station House Officer to conduct investigation was bad in law and, therefore, all subsequent acts of the Chief Judicial Magistrate in the matter deserves to be set aside. Resultantly, the present writ petition is allowed. The impugned charge-sheet dated 8-12-2007 issued by the Inspector General of Police, Bhopal is hereby quashed. The petitioner shall be entitled for all consequential benefits in accordance with law. No order as to costs. Petition allowed.