Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 355 (HP)

Bhagat Singh Thakur v. State of Himachal Pradesh

2015-04-17

TARLOK SINGH CHAUHAN

body2015
JUDGMENT Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge The petitioner by medium of this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has sought quashing of FIR No. 57 of 2013 registered at Police Station, Swarghat on 17.9.2013 under Sections 143, 430, 447, 448, 120B IPC (for short the ‘Code’) and Sections 3 (1) (5), 3 (1) (13) and 3 (2) (7) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short the ‘Act’). 2. The petitioner is an HPS Officer and has been arraigned as accused in the aforesaid FIR. It appears that during the year 2003, the residents of two villages namely Dadwal and Khurni got sanctioned a Government water supply scheme known as ‘Vikas Main Jan Sahyog’. A dispute arose amongst the villagers of the aforesaid villages. The matter finally reached this Court when respondent No.4 filed a writ petition i.e. CWP No. 2096 of 2010 titled Vir Singh vs. State of H.P. and others and claiming therein the following relief: “i) That the respondents No. 2 and 3 be directed to ensure that supply of drinking water is immediately restored to the residents of Scheduled Caste village Dadwal from the water lifting pump situate at a place known Jharod in Village Dadwal, set up under the scheme known as “VIKAS MAIN JAN SAHYOG KARYAKRAM”. 3. In this petition, respondent No.4 prayed for a direction to the official respondents to ensure that the supply of drinking water is immediately restored to the residents of village Dadwal from the water lifting pump situate at a place known Jharod in Village Dadwal. 4. Initially, the Deputy Commissioner, Bilaspur was directed to submit his report regarding the water supply and thereafter this Court directed the Chairman, District Legal Services Authority to look into the complaint. In compliance to the directions of this Court, the Chairman, District Legal Services Authority, Bilaspur visited the spot on 29.5.2010 and submitted his report which reads: “I have visited the spot on 29.5.2010 at 8.30 A/M/ as per the direction given by Legal Services Authority alongwith Police officials of Police Station, Swarghat, the rought sketch of the Pump House prepared at spot and photographs were also drawn. The Pump House is locked with two locks. There is only one 2”, G.I. Pipe to the water tank situated at village Dhadwal which is about 1000 meter above the pump house side. The Pump House is locked with two locks. There is only one 2”, G.I. Pipe to the water tank situated at village Dhadwal which is about 1000 meter above the pump house side. There is another ½” pipe line for one tap in the temple complex just near to the pump house for drinking water to the general public and cattle. The village Kharuni is also 1 kilometer away from the pump house, but it is at the same level or slightly at the lower level from the pump house. There is no water pipe line connected with pump house to village Kharuni. There is kacha pit about 10 meter away from the pump house in the Nallah and one plastic pipe is lying by the side of the pit which takes water to village Khaurni by gravitational force. There are about 1 to 2 houses only which can get water gravity at village Kharuni. When I passed through the village Kharuni then I also noticed taps and G.I. pipe which means there is water supply scheme to village Kharuni and that village is also connected with the road. The village Dhadwal is neither connected with any road nor it is having drinking water supply scheme except the water from present source and pump house. The rough sketch of the spot, C.D. of photographs taken with my own mobile phone, black and white print of the photographs are also attached with the report for the perusal of the Legal Services Authority.” 5. When the petition came up for hearing on 3.6.2010 this Court passed the following orders: “We are informed that each parties have their own locks on the pumping system. There will be direction to the parties to remove the locks within 24 hours. In case, the locks are not removed, there will be direction to the Superintendent of Police, Bilaspur to see that the locks are dismantled and water supply is restored as it existed before 20th March, 2010.” 6. It is after the aforesaid direction that the role of the petitioner to execute the order passed by this Court comes into picture. In case, the locks are not removed, there will be direction to the Superintendent of Police, Bilaspur to see that the locks are dismantled and water supply is restored as it existed before 20th March, 2010.” 6. It is after the aforesaid direction that the role of the petitioner to execute the order passed by this Court comes into picture. It is averred that the petitioner in his capacity of Additional Superintendent of Police alongwith SHO, Police Station, Swarghat, and SDO, I&PH Sub Division, Swarghat visited the spot on 5.6.2010 and conveyed the aforesaid orders to both the parties and thereafter both the parties removed their respective locks from the pump house and the petitioner submitted a compliance report on the affidavit to the Superintendent of Police, Bilaspur on 9.6.2010. 7. The writ petition was again listed before this Court on 6.9.2010 on which date the following order came to be passed: “This petition involves disputed question of facts and law which cannot be settled only by filing affidavits. Faced with this situation, Sh.Rajiv Jiwan, learned counsel for the petitioner prays for leave to withdraw the writ petition with liberty reserved to the petitioner to take out appropriate proceedings in the appropriate forum. Prayer allowed. It is made clear that till the petitioner approaches the civil court and obtains appropriate interim order from the Civil Court the direction dated 3.6.2010 shall continue. It is also made clear that the civil Court will decide the interim application on its own merits totally uninfluenced by any order passed by this Court.” 8. The respondent No.4 instead of approaching the Civil Court appears to have approached the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bilaspur by invoking the provision of Section 156 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure for registration of the criminal case against the villagers of village Khurni and certain other persons, officials etc. including the present petitioner. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate allowed the complaint and ordered the registration of FIR against the petitioner and other persons and consequently FIR No. 57 of 2013 came to be registered on 17.9.2013. 9. including the present petitioner. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate allowed the complaint and ordered the registration of FIR against the petitioner and other persons and consequently FIR No. 57 of 2013 came to be registered on 17.9.2013. 9. The petitioner has sought quashing of FIR on the ground that it is a grave misuse of the process of law and the petitioner had in his capacity of Additional Superintendent of Police carried out the directions which had been passed by this Court in the writ petition preferred by Vir Singh, respondent No.4. Apart therefrom, the petitioner has questioned the bonafides of respondent No.4 in filing a complaint before the learned Magistrate after inordinate delay of more than three months. 10. The official respondents filed their reply wherein they raised objection regarding maintainability of the petition on the ground that the case was still under investigation. 11. It is only the respondent No.4, who has mainly contested the petition on the ground that the petitioner had only on the dictates of the local MLA stopped the supply of water to the residents of Dadwal village and thereby committed an offence under Section 3 of the Act as the village was predominantly inhabited by Scheduled Caste. 12. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the records of the case carefully and meticulously. 13. Indisputably, the only allegation which has been attributed to the petitioner, who has been referred to as accused No.12, is contained in para 13 of the FIR which reads thus: “13. That when all remedies which were otherwise available to the complainant were exhausted by the complainant but were made futile by accused No. 8 with his influence and no waterways restored to harizan Basti then a writ was filed in the Hon’ble High Court on 3.6.2010 to restore the supply of water within 24 hours by removing the locks put by the parties. Therefore, in view of the said direction the water supply was restored to the complainant and to the other resident of Dadwal on 5.6.2010. Therefore, in view of the said direction the water supply was restored to the complainant and to the other resident of Dadwal on 5.6.2010. But at this movement of time accused No. 1 to 7, 9 to 12 came on the spot and under the direction of accused No.8 opened a new channel of water from the covered tank to give supply of water to accused No.1 to 7 and a new pipe line was connected with the tank at a lower level (which is still incomplete) was a clear indication of criminal conspiracy of accused No.8 with all other accused persons in order to commit an offence under the Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribes Act.” 14. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner did not visit the spot of his own but had visited the same only to comply with the direction of this Court passed in the writ petition i.e. CWP No. 2096 of 2010. 15. Now, the question arises as to whether the petitioner had exceeded his jurisdiction in executing the orders of this Court and thereby is guilty of commission of the aforesaid offences, if so, why then did not the respondent No.4, who admittedly was the petitioner in the writ petition bring this fact to the knowledge of this Court. What prevented him from doing so and further why he awaited for more than three months to file an application under Section 156 (3) of the Code before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bilaspur, is not forthcoming? 16. Prompt and early reporting of the occurrence by the informant with all its vivid details gives an assurance regarding its true version. In case, there is some delay in filing the FIR, the complainant must give explanation for the same. Undoubtedly, delay in lodging the FIR does not make the complainant’s case improbable when such delay is properly explained. However, deliberate delay in lodging the complaint may prove to be fatal. When there is no proper explanation for the delay, the Court can always presume that the allegations were an after thought or that the complainant had given a coloured version of events. The Court has to carefully examine the facts before it, for the reason, that the complainant party may initiate criminal proceedings just to harass the other side with malafide intentions or with ulterior motive of wreaking vengeance. The Court has to carefully examine the facts before it, for the reason, that the complainant party may initiate criminal proceedings just to harass the other side with malafide intentions or with ulterior motive of wreaking vengeance. The Court proceedings ought not to be permitted to degenerate into a weapon of harassment and persecution. In such a case, where an FIR is lodged clearly with a view to spite the other party because of a private and personal grudge and to enmesh the other party in long and arduous criminal proceedings, the Court may take a view that it amounts to an abuse of the process of law. 17. The compliance report submitted by the petitioner on the affidavit of the Superintendent of Police, Bilaspur, was duly considered by this Court and not only did this Court not find any action of the petitioner to be uncalled for but even the respondent No.4 at that stage did not make any grievance regarding the action or the report submitted by the petitioner. Admittedly, this report was submitted to this Court on 9.6.2010 and it was only thereafter on 6.9.2010 that the petition filed by the respondent No.4 was finally disposed of. Why during the interregnum between 9.6.2010 uptil 6.9.2010 or rather uptil 13.12.2010 when for the first time the respondent No.4 filed an application under Section 156 (3) of the Code before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bilaspur did not respondent No.4 make any grievance? In absence of any explanation at all, it can safely be concluded that the allegations are an after thought and the complainant has given a coloured version simply to harass the petitioner. 18. Not only this, the allegations against the petitioner are otherwise vague and do not in any manner attract the applicability of Section 3 of the Act. The petitioner, who is a public servant cannot be unnecessarily harassed on the basis of such vague allegations which even if taken on the face value, do not constitute an offence. If the Government servant on the basis of such vague allegations is put to ordeal of a trial, it would not be possible for any public servant to discharge his duties without fear and favour. 19. The criminal proceedings instituted against the petitioner at the instance of respondent No.4 are manifestly attended with malafide and ulterior motive and, therefore cannot be sustained. 20. 19. The criminal proceedings instituted against the petitioner at the instance of respondent No.4 are manifestly attended with malafide and ulterior motive and, therefore cannot be sustained. 20. In view the aforesaid discussion, there is merit in this petition and the same is accordingly allowed and FIR No. 57 of 2013 registered at Police Station, Swarghat on 17.9.2013 under Sections 143, 430, 447, 448, 120B IPC and Sections 3 (1) (5), 3 (1) (13) and 3 (2) (7) of the Act insofar as it relates to the petitioner is quashed. Pending application, if any, is also disposed of in view of disposal of the main petition.