Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 35 (UTT)

Constable Naveen Singh v. State of Uttarakhand

2022-03-07

RAVINDRA MAITHANI

body2022
JUDGMENT : : Both these petitions arise from FIR No.87 of 2022, Police Station Kiccha, District Udham Singh Nagar. The petitioners have sought quashing of the FIR as well as, the directions that the petitioners may not be arrested pursuant to the FIR. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 3. On 26.02.2022, the respondent no.3 Amit Kumar, Circle Officer, Traffic Police, Pant Nagar along with other police personnel were on patrolling duty. He stopped some trucks carrying sand. The trucks were weighed. The informant found irregularities particularly, overloading of the truck (in Truck No. UP25BT 8215). According to the FIR, 33 tones sand were overloaded as well as evasion of royalty (in Truck No. UP25DT 9325), according to the FIR, 3.7 tones sand was being transported without any royalty. In all, 52 trucks (vehicles) were intercepted on that date. The drivers told it to the informant that they manage to transport sand in the manner by paying money to the police officers. According to the FIR, the payment is made as follows:- (i) Rs.500/- per truck/vehicle is given to the Incharge Police Chauki, Sub-Inspector Deepak Kaushik through Constable Police Naveen Kanayak, and; (ii) Rs.800/- per truck/vehicle to In-charge Police Chauki Dauraha, Petitioner Ashok Kandpal through Constable Police Shailendra, the petitioner. 4. It is also told to the police at the time of interception that if the petitioners Shailendra and Naveen Singh are not available, the money is directly paid to Incharge Police Chauki Deepak Kaushik and Ashok Kandpal. The FIR is quite in detail, it gives details of the vehicles, etc. 5. Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the FIR is absurd; it does not disclose any offence against the petitioners. The petitioners are police officers; without following any procedure particularly preliminary inquiry, etc. straightway FIR has been lodged. Learned senior counsel raised the following points in his arguments:- (i) According to the FIR, none of the persons had told it to the respondent that they had given money to the informant or anyone of them on that date. (ii) There is no time and date specifically recorded in the FIR, when money was paid to the petitioners. (iii) Certain vehicles were found carrying sand beyond permissible limit. Based on the confessional statements of the drivers, the petitioners have been implicated. (ii) There is no time and date specifically recorded in the FIR, when money was paid to the petitioners. (iii) Certain vehicles were found carrying sand beyond permissible limit. Based on the confessional statements of the drivers, the petitioners have been implicated. The confessional statements has no sanctity in the eye of law. 6. Learned senior counsel would submit that police may proceed with the investigation, to that extend, the petitioners have no problem, but the petitioners should not be arrested, unless or until, by legally admissible evidence, it is established that the petitioners or anyone of them is involved in the matter, in any manner. 7. It is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It seeks quashing of an FIR. In appropriate cases undoubtedly interference in such matter is made. The principle which guide exercise of the jurisdiction has been settled in catena of judgments by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Illustratively certain category of cases has been given by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana and Others Vs. Bhajan Lal and Others, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, where this jurisdiction may be exercised. In para 102 of the judgment, Hon’ble Supreme Court observed as hereunder:- “102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised. (1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. (1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. (2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code. (3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. (4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code. (5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. (6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. (7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.” 8. In the case of State of Telangana vs. Habib Abdullah Jeelani and others, (2017)2 SCC 779 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that this jurisdiction should be exercised sparingly and with caution. In paragraph 13, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed as hereunder:- “13. There can be no dispute over the proposition that inherent power in a matter of quashment of FIR has to be exercised sparingly and with caution and when and only when such exercise is justified by the test specifically laid down in the provision itself. In paragraph 13, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed as hereunder:- “13. There can be no dispute over the proposition that inherent power in a matter of quashment of FIR has to be exercised sparingly and with caution and when and only when such exercise is justified by the test specifically laid down in the provision itself. There is no denial of the fact that the power under Section 482 CrPC is very wide but it needs no special emphasis to state that conferment of wide power requires the Court to be more cautious. It casts an onerous and more diligent duty on the Court.” 9. Considering any petition for quashing the FIR should be within the given guidelines. It may not be used as a tool to interfere with the investigation. It may not be exercised to obstruct the legally admissible jurisdiction of an Investigating Officer in the matter of investigations. 10. It is true that in the FIR it is not recorded, as to which date, who paid, what amount to the petitioners or any other? The FIR with regard to the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short, “the Act”) is lodged for the offences under Sections 8 and 9. These Sections are as related to offence relating to bribing of a public servant and offences relating to bribing a public servant by a commercial organization. 11. The Investigating Officer is not always guided by, as to under what Section of law an FIR is lodged. He has to investigate the case in order to ascertain the truth, as to whether any offence, is made out against any person. Sections 8 and 9 of the Act, as quoted hereinabove, makes it abundantly clear that it punishes a person/organization who give undue advantage to induce a public servant to perform improperly a public duty, etc. The public servant who accepts or attempts to obtain an undue advantage with the intention to perform or cause performance of public duty improperly or dishonestly or to forebear or cause forebearance to perform such duties, is punishable under Section 7 of the Act. This Court at this stage cannot record any conclusion with regard to complicity of any of the petitioners and specific role of any of them. 12. Learned senior counsel has also argued that after all reputation of a public servant should have been assessed before lodging FIR. This Court at this stage cannot record any conclusion with regard to complicity of any of the petitioners and specific role of any of them. 12. Learned senior counsel has also argued that after all reputation of a public servant should have been assessed before lodging FIR. Straightway FIR should not have been lodged. It may be noted that in the instant case, FIR has been lodged by a senior police officer. It is true that in corruption cases a preliminary inquiry is permissible in view of the judgment in the case of Lalita Kumari vs. Government of Uttar Pradesh and others, (2014)2 SCC 1 , but in the case of State of Telangana vs. Managipet alias Mangipet Sarveshwar Reddy, (2019)19 SCC 87 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has categorically held that preliminary inquiry is not mandatory in all corruption cases. 13. Based on illegalities found on the road, the FIR has been lodged by the senior police officer. Trucks were found overloaded with the sand. To the extent of 33 tones overloading was recorded in the FIR. The person carrying the sand told it to the informant that they pay money to the petitioners at a fixed rate. Prima facie offence is made out against the petitioners. Whether the statement, as recorded in the FIR is true or false, this may be a subject matter of investigation. In such matters, this Court is of the view that no interference is warranted. Accordingly, both the petitions deserve to be dismissed. 14. Both the petitions are dismissed.