Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 368 (RAJ)

STATE OF RAJASTHAN v. AJEET SINGH

2015-02-09

PRAKASH GUPTA, SUNIL AMBWANI

body2015
JUDGMENT : 1. The Amicus Curiae, appointed by the Court, was discharged on 10.09.2014, on the ground that instead of appearing and assisting the Court, he was repetedly seeking adjournments in the matter. 2. This Court had taken cognizance of the letter sent by the Special Judge, A.C.D. Cases, Ajmer to the then Hon'ble the Chief Justice on 22.01.2014, alleging that an order passed by him, after detailed hearing, under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, directing the police to register the First Information Report and investigate the matter, was not complied with by the police. He had referred to the various reminders sent to the respondent for compliance of the order. 3. On 27.06.2012, the Special Judge, Sessions Court, A.C.D. Cases, Ajmer (the applicant), exercising powers under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., directed the Additional Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau, Nagaur, to initiate a process of investigation, in accordance with law, and to submit the conclusion/report of investigation before the Court. 4. It is submitted by learned counsel appearing for respondent-Shri Ajeet Singh, IPS, the then Additional Director General of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau, Rajasthan, Jaipur, that the respondents did not refuse to investigate the matter. A preliminary enquiry (PE) was initiated, on which after enquiries, he did not find the allegations established, and submitted his report to the Court. 5. It is submitted that the State of Rajasthan through the Additional Director General, Anti Corruption Bureau, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur, had challenged the same order passed by the Special Judge, ACD Cases, Ajmer in High Court in S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.4705/2013 under Section 482 Cr.P.C., in which by a long and detailed judgment dated 12.12.2014(filed on record of this case along with an additional affidavit), it was held by learned Single Judge that the Special Judge, ACD Cases, Ajmer being a Magistrate in view of Section 5 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, can direct the police to investigate the matter under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. After receiving such directions, the police will conduct a preliminary enquiry. The police on receiving the order of the Magistrate, may register the FIR if cognizable office is made out, and if a cognizable offence is not made out in the preliminary enquiry conducted by the police, then the police will submit report before the concerned Magistrate. 6. The police on receiving the order of the Magistrate, may register the FIR if cognizable office is made out, and if a cognizable offence is not made out in the preliminary enquiry conducted by the police, then the police will submit report before the concerned Magistrate. 6. Learned Single Judge relied on the observations made by a Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Lallita Kumari Vs. Govt. of UP & Ors., (2014) 2 SCC 1 , as follows:- “110. Therefore, in view of various counter claims regarding registration or non-registration, what is necessary is only that the information given to the police must disclose the commission of a cognizable offence. In such a situation, registration of an FIR is mandatory. However, if no cognizable offence is made out in the information given, then the FIR need not be registered immediately and perhaps the police can conduct a sort of preliminary verification or inquiry for the limited purpose of ascertaining as to whether a cognizable offence has been committed. But, if the information ven clearly mentions the commission of a cognizable offence, there is no other option but to register an FIR forthwith. Other considerations are not relevant at the stage of registration of FIR, such as, whether the information is falsely given, whether the information is genuine, whether the information is credible etc. These are the issues that have to be verified during the investigation of the FIR. At the stage of registration of FIR, what is to be seen is merely whether the information given ex facie discloses the commission of a cognizable offence. If, after investigation, the information given is found to be false, there is always an option to prosecute the complainant for filing a false FIR.” 7. In the present case, learned Single Judge on the facts brought before him, has decided the issue, and thus, we do not find that the respondent has committed any such act, which may fall within the definition of willful and deliberate non-compliance of the order of the Magistrate. The preliminary enquiry in accordance with the standard procedure followed by Anti Corruption Bureau, was registered in pursuance to the directions issued by the Special Judge on 27.06.2012, in which, after investigation, the allegations were not found established. The preliminary enquiry in accordance with the standard procedure followed by Anti Corruption Bureau, was registered in pursuance to the directions issued by the Special Judge on 27.06.2012, in which, after investigation, the allegations were not found established. The Magistrate in his order dated 27.06.2012, did not form or record his opinion, that in the complaint any cognizable offence was disclosed. The position is law would have been different, if any such prima facie opinion was recorded. The Magistrate simply directed the ACB to investigate the matter, on which in view of Lallita Kumari Vs. Govt. of UP & Ors. (supra), it was open to ACD to register a PE, conduct investigation and submit a report to the Magistrate. The Magistrate could then have proceeded with the matter, in accordance with law. 8. In our view, the respondent has not committed any willful and deliberate disobedience of the order passed by the Special Judge, on which the Court may exercise power under Section 11/12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. 9. The contempt petition is dismissed. The notices issued to the respondent are discharged.