Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 254 (MP)

Ashok Singh Bhadoriya v. State of M. P.

2014-02-28

ROHIT ARYA

body2014
Judgment: Rohit Arya, J. 1. In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has sought indulgence of this Court with a prayer that respondent Nos. 1 to 3 be directed to expedite pending enquiry against the respondent Nos. 5 and 6 and initiate criminal proceedings against them. Petitioner has alleged that the respondent Nos. 5 and 6 while they were posted as Assistant Sub-Inspector and Constable of SAF respectively had misbehaved, harassed, humiliated and manhandled him on 15-5-2013 at Deendayal Check Post and therefore, he had made a complaint to the authorities. Gist of the complaint is to the following effect:-- The complainant, Brijendra Singh Bhadoriya on 15-5-2013 at about 11.30 p.m., when he was travelling in his Maruti Esteem bearing registration No. MP07-EA-0732 passing through Malanpur towards Gwalior and reached near Deendayal Check Post, ASI, Naresh Singh Chouhan and Constable of SAF, Jandel Singh have stopped the vehicle for checking, then he (complainant) by sitting on the driver seat opened the Dicky (Boot), even then, they told him (complainant) to get down from the vehicle for checking. The complainant asked them to do so. On this, they abused with filthy language, committed marpeet with him and humiliated. Thereafter, on the instructions of the Additional Superintendent of Police, issued challan of the vehicle. 2. Petitioner submits that considering the gravity of the alleged incident, the respondents must be directed not only to complete the enquiry pending against the respondent Nos. 5 and 6 expeditiously, but also initiate the proceedings as contained in Regulation 337 of the Madhya Pradesh Police Regulations. 3. In response to the order dated 4-9-2013 passed by this Court, the respondents have brought on record the progress report, wherein it is stated that on complaint being filed by the petitioner, an enquiry was ordered by the Superintendent of Police, Gwalior. As per enquiry report dated 23-5-2013 conducted by the City Superintendent of Police, Maharajpur, Gwalior (Annexure A-1), the statements of petitioner, petitioner's witness, Brijendra Singh Bhadoriya, respondent Nos. 5 and 6 as well as independent witnesses, namely; Bikam Singh Bhadoriya and Jitendra Singh Rajawat have been recorded. It has been found in the enquiry that during night hours on 15-5-2013, on the orders of the senior officers, two-wheeler and four-wheeler vehicles were checked at the check post of Deendayal Nagar, Maharajpur in order to check the undesirable activities by suspected people. It has been found in the enquiry that during night hours on 15-5-2013, on the orders of the senior officers, two-wheeler and four-wheeler vehicles were checked at the check post of Deendayal Nagar, Maharajpur in order to check the undesirable activities by suspected people. During such checking, the petitioner alongwith his brother, Brijendra Singh Bhadoriya had reached the check post in Maruti Esteem bearing registration No. MP07-EA-0732 in a high speed and Assistant Sub-Inspector, Naresh Singh Chouhan by torch light signals somehow stopped the car. Due to jerk of sudden brake applied police personnel standing around that area had a narrow escape. On checking, it was found that petitioner did not possess the registration book and other documents in respect of the car and, therefore, challan was prepared and since the petitioner refused to pay the fine, the vehicle was sent to the police station. Thereafter, in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Gwalior, the petitioner accepting the guilt in Case No. 4340/13, paid the fine amount of Rs. 600/- vide Receipt No. 38292/10 and under the orders of the Court, the vehicle was released. On the insistence of petitioner, MLC was also got done and none of the witnesses except the petitioner and his brother alleged physical assault by the police personnel. It was concluded that as the petitioner's vehicle on checking, it was found that petitioner does not have registration book and other documents of the car in which he was riding and on refusal to pay the fine, the vehicle was sent to the police station. Besides, on accepting the guilt before the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Gwalior since fine was imposed upon him and it was paid, as a sequel thereto, the complaint was made by the petitioner. 4. It appears that thereafter, the petitioner filed a private complaint before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Gwalior. Under the orders of the Court, the Superintendent of Police, Gwalior, on the same allegations ordered for enquiry by the Additional Superintendent of Police, Gwalior. The said authority again conducted a detailed enquiry wherein the petitioner and his witness, Brijendra Singh Bhadoriya, respondent Nos. 5 and 6, Head Constable No. 1894, Akhilesh Sharma, Inspector Ravi Singh Chauhan, Additional Superintendent of Police, Virendra Jain and independent witnesses, namely; Vikram Singh Bhadoriya and Jitendra Singh Kushwah. The said authority again conducted a detailed enquiry wherein the petitioner and his witness, Brijendra Singh Bhadoriya, respondent Nos. 5 and 6, Head Constable No. 1894, Akhilesh Sharma, Inspector Ravi Singh Chauhan, Additional Superintendent of Police, Virendra Jain and independent witnesses, namely; Vikram Singh Bhadoriya and Jitendra Singh Kushwah. Upon critical evaluation of the statements recorded, the Additional Superintendent of Police vide his report dated 16-9-2013 submitted to the Superintendent of Police, Gwalior. The same is also on record as Annexure A-2, the gist reads as under:-- On 15-5-2013 at about 11.30 p.m., Ashok Singh Bhadoriya (complainant) Was riding Esteem car bearing registration No. MP-07-EA-0732 and under the jurisdiction of Maharajpur Police Station at Deendayal Thiraha, Bhind Road, the vehicle of petitioner was asked to stop for checking, but the complainant failed to extend co-operation for stopping and checking the vehicle and used provocative language against the police personnel checking the vehicle. On this, the complainant was taken to Virendra Jain, Additional Superintendent of Police, City (East), who was present at the spot. The said officer asked the complainant to show the documents of the vehicle, the complainant told that he does not possess the papers. Therefore, the Station House Officer had issued a challan to pay fine under the Motor Vehicles Act and after passing the orders, the complainant deposited the fine amount of Rs. 600/-. At the checking spot, Deendayal Thiraha, Bhind-Gwalior Road, there were other vehicles checked alongwith the vehicle of the complainant. The police personnel checking the vehicle of complainant were not known to each other prior to incident and there was no enmity between them at the time of checking his vehicle. The general public, whose vehicles have been checked, amongst them the independent witnesses Vikram Singh Bhadoriya and Jitendra Singh Kushwah have not stated anything that the checking police personnel misbehaved or committed marpeet with the complainant. During enquiry, no order material came on record, to deviate from the enquiry conducted earlier by City Superintendent of Police, Maharajpur. 5. The respondents' Counsel, therefore, submits that on the complaint filed by the petitioner twice, two enquiries have been conducted; one on the directions of the Superintendent of Police, Gwalior and another one on the orders of the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Gwalior through different enquiry officers. In the enquiries so held, the statements of petitioner and his witness, the respondent Nos. In the enquiries so held, the statements of petitioner and his witness, the respondent Nos. 5 and 6 and their respective witnesses including the independent witnesses were recorded. The enquiry reports are self-contained and explanatory. 6. Considered the rival contentions and the material on record is perused. 7. In both the enquiry reports, it has been found that since petitioner did not possess the registration book and other documents of the car, which he was driving at the time of checking, therefore, the car was sent to police station as he refused to pay the fine. On the next date, as per the orders of the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Gwalior, the fine amount of Rs. 600/- has been paid and, thereafter, the car was released. Further, the petitioner and the respondent Nos. 5 and 6 are not known to each other and there is no personal animosity between them. Under such circumstances, the entire matter appears to have flared up on reactionary mode due to checking of the car in question at the check post. 8. In view of the above, this Court prima facie is of the view that no ill-intention can be attributed to the checking police personnel, the respondent Nos. 5 and 6. Moreover, there were other vehicle owners at the check post undergoing checking of their vehicles and no such action was complained by any one of them and even the independent witnesses have also not deposed to that effect. 9. This Court is of the view that the facts and circumstances of the case in hand do not either fulfill factual ingredients or to justify had penal action against the police personnel as provided under Regulation 337 of the Madhya Pradesh Police Regulations. 10. In view of the above, the petition sans merit and has to be dismissed. 11. The observations made by this Court are only for the purpose of deciding the petition and not otherwise. 12. Before parting, it is considered apposite to observe that the police force is no more a British Police with military attitude. The police force is to be friendly and to protect the people at large in our country; democratic polity where rule of law prevails. 12. Before parting, it is considered apposite to observe that the police force is no more a British Police with military attitude. The police force is to be friendly and to protect the people at large in our country; democratic polity where rule of law prevails. In the Welfare State, deployment of police force is not to crush, but to help and protect the people/society, for sustenance of law and order, which in a way help facilitate maintenance of social order in the society. As such, police force has onerous duty and responsibility to protect and regulate the social order by maintaining peace, tranquility and public order in the society. At the same time, the public at large/society also need to contribute towards the same goal and need to realise their fundamental moral duties. 13. However, the police force considered to be acclaimed disciplined force need to understand that patience and self-restraint is part of their duty. They should not harbour notion that there is no one to police the policeman. Accordingly, the petition stands dismissed with the aforesaid observation.