Pratap Singh Shishodia vs State of U.P. and Another

Palok Basu, J.—Pratap Singh Shishodia has filed this application u/s 482 Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing an order dated 27-8-1984 whereby the magistrate has taken congnizance on a police charge sheet and summoned him u/s 180/411 IPC.

A prolonged investigative wrangle primarily the result of an egoistic battle of wits between two rival committees of an institution has ultimately seen the applicant as an accused which perhaps was the target of one of the parties while the other had been protecting him so far.

Sri Rajendra Kumar Tyagi, Principal Shashtri Smarak Higher Secondary School, village Ahmadpur Padra, P. S. Baghpat, district Meerut lodged a first information report on 24-11-1976 u/s 380 IPC alleging that some registers and documents were missing from an Almirah of the College. No body was named in this FIR as accused. This FIR was lodged at the behest of a newly elected Managing Committee (Nav Nirvachit Samiti). It appears that these registers may have been related to some scholarship to students and attendance registers of teachers and distribution of NCC Funds. By a detailed report the police found that the FIR dated 24-11-1976 was false and, therefore, submitted a final report.

The case of the applicant is that the said FIR was false and had been manipulated at the behest of some persons of the Committee of Management with malafide intention to save himself from charges of misappropriation of college fund and the like and since the applicant was a well wisher of the institution being a teacher therein, he has been falsely implicated due to internal politics.

It appears that some complaint was moved by the applicant about some misappropriation etc. before the SDM Baghpat and the D.I.O.S. Meerut in 1977 and which according to the Petitioner, is being investigated still.

On 15-6-1983 the opposite party No. 2 Rajendra Kumar Tyagi filed a complaint in the court of the Munsif Magistrate, Baghpat, and got his statement recorded u/s 200 Code of Criminal Procedure. He examined witnesses Sohan Pal and Dharampal u/s 202 Code of Criminal Procedure. After having done this, the magistrate passed an order directing the Police to register the case and after investigation submit a report before him within two months. No report from the Police was forthcoming and consequently the applicant, having come to know of these proceedings, prayed to the magistrate that the complaint be dismissed as no report from the police had come and that the magistrate had not summoned the applicant so far. In the meantime the applicant got bail from the competent court because of his having been arrested in the proceedings emanating from the complaint but no report from the police had come in the complaint case.

However, on 30-6-1984 the police filed a chage sheet in pursuance of the FIR lodged on the direction of the magistrate and, therefore, on the said date the magistrate directed further that the complaint case be consigned to the Record because there was then a named charge sheet on the basis of his FIR. It has been averred in the affidavit in support of the present petition that the police of Baghpat had submitted charge sheet after having recorded the statements of Rajendra Kumar Tyagi and his witness Sohanpal u/s 161 Code of Criminal Procedure and took into possession some papers from one Nandan Kumar Singh. Therefore, this case came to be numbered as Criminal State v. Pratap Singh Case No. 184 of 1984 Under Sections 380/411 IPC

The applicant filed a Criminal Revision No. 320 of 1984 before the Sessinns Judge whereby he challenged the orders dated 16-7-1983 directing the police to register a case and to investigate, dated 25-5-1984 refusing to reject the complaint dated 30-6-1984 directing the complaint case to be consigned to record.

It was held by the Sessions Judge in the order dated 3-1-1985 that since the magistrate did not have any power u/s 156 Code of Criminal Procedure to direct investigation after having recorded the statement of witnesses in a complaint case much less any power to direct investigation by the police and since the complaint has been consigned to records and the accused has been summoned on the Police charge sheet the applicant was entitled to no relief.

Aggrieved by the aforesaid orders of the magistrate as well as that of the Sessions Judge the applicant has approached this Court u/s 482 Code of Criminal Procedure.

Sri Kr. Ram Chandra Singh, learned advocate for the applicant. Sri V. K. Goel, learned Counsel for the opposite party No. 2 (complainant informant) and Sri Surendra Singh and Kr. Naheed Moonis learned AGA for the State have been heard at length and the entire record has been examined thoroughly.

The learned Counsel for the applicant has submitted that the magistrate had no jurisdiction to direct registration of the case by the Police at bis instance particularly because the complainant has chosen to proceed by a complaint and had examined himself u/s 200 Code of Criminal Procedure and had also examined two of his witnesses u/s 202 Code of Criminal Procedure. It was argued that once the procedure of a complaint was is adopted the magistrate may have either proceeded to get the matter investigated before recording the statements of the witnesses of the complainant or if he was not satisfied with the statements of the complainant''s witnesses he would have dismissed the complaint u/s 203 Code of Criminal Procedure. The other aspect argued by him was that the matter is of 1976 more than 15 years have elapsed since the lodging of the first information report by the opposite party and that had resulted in a final report after detailed investigation by the police, there was therefore, no justification for the magistrate himself to direct the registration of the case again by the police and the procedure adopted by the magistrate was not only illegal but detrimental to the applicant''s interests. The learned Counsel for the complainant, however, argued that there was no bar in the magistrate''s order directing an investigation to be made even after recording the statements of the witnesses of the complainant. Reliance was placed on the case of this Court reported in 1989 ALJ 67.

13 Under the provisions contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure a crime can be registered at a Police Station by or on behalf of the same person for investigation only once. Lodging of two first information reports relating to same incident by the same person at the police station is unknown. If two informations are lodged by two different persons the latter one is always connected with the former one or registered as cross case and both the cases may be investigated accordingly. However, after a case is investigated and a final report is filed, the magistrate may refuse to accept it and take cognizance and summon the accused on the materials collected and forwarded to him, by the Police or the magistrate may alternatively direct reinvestigation. But this was not what has been done in the instant case. Directing re-registration of a case at the behest of the magistrate himself and then to get the matter re-investigated inspite of the former investigation does not have the sanction of law. Therefore, it was perhaps right that the complainant had chosen to brim? the matter to the court through a complaint and had also examined himself u/s 200 Code of Criminal Procedure and his witnesses u/s 202 Code of Criminal Procedure Therefore, the question whether the magistrate could direct investigation even after the recording of the statements of the witnesses of the complainant does not arise in the instant case, for, the direction to register a case at the police station itself amounted to registration of the matter which had been investigated finally by the police on an earlier occasion. As stated above, this order of the magistrate is illegal and consequently all further proceedings emanting therefrom shall also be deemed to be illegal.

It is true that normally this Court does not go into sufficiency of material existing before the magistrate in summoning an accused on a police charge sheet. However, in the instant case it may have to be mentioned that the magistrate had not placed reliance upon the testimony of the opposite party No. 2 Rajendra Kumar Tyagi and his witness Sohan Pal Singh and Dharam Singh. The charge sheet of the Investigating Officer is based only on the statements of these two witnesses examined u/s 161 Code of Criminal Procedure Therefore, if the matter is examined from any angle it has to beheld that the instant case is one where there was no legal basis or justificable material existing on the record to summon the applicant u/s 380/411 IPC.

Very serious consideration has to be given to the fact that more than 15 years have passed and the applicant who was a teacher is being tossed like a shuttle cock from one court to the other, from one proceedings to another and driven to seek one remedy or the other in that or this Court. The alleged loss was of a few registers, copies of documents etc. which were already filed in some of the complaints before D.I.O.S. Consequently, the matter cannot be permitted to be dragged on in a criminal court any longer. The harassment of the accused has been certainly profound and loud enough to compel this Court to exercise the inherent powers to quash the order taking cognizance as well all proceedings therefrom.

Consequently this application succeeds and is allowed. Further proceedings in State v. Pratap Singh case No. 184 of 1984 u/s 380/411 IPC pending in Court of Judicial Magistrate Baghpat, Meerut, are quashed. Interim order dated 9-4-1985 is vacated.