Rajinder vs State of Haryana

G.S. Chahal, J.—Rajinder and others have sought quashing of the First Information Report No. 8 dated 13.10.1988, Police Station Gohana, District Sonepat which was registered on the communication received from the SubDivisional Officer (Civil), Gohana and addressed to the Station House Officer, Gohana. The impugned FIR, so far as relevant, reads as under :

".....On 21.11.87 I was present at place of occurrence in village Rabhra in connection with the measurement of public path No. 2294 along with Girdawar Halqa No. 2, Gohana, Sh. Hukam Chand Patwari Halqa Rabhra, Ram Pal Patwari Halqa Nagar and Chander Singh Patwari Halqa Mahra went to village Rabhra, in the presence of the respectables of the village. They started the measurement of the path. When the above said officials were demarking the path then Sh. Shri Kishan son of Tika Ram, Rajinder, Sat Narain son of Shri Kishan Kidara son of Shri Kishan and Ram Chander son of Tika Ram residents of village Rabhra came to the spot and started quarelling with the above said Govt. officials and threatened to kill them. All these persons were armed with lathies and jailies and obstructed the public servants in the discharge of their public function. All these facts were brought to the notice of Deputy Commissioner who vide his letter No. 2728/AE/EB dated 18.8.1988 has ordered to register a complaint for obstructing Govt. officials in the discharge of public function......"

Previously, proceedings under section 107/151 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been initiated on these very facts by the SubDivisional Magistrate. However, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sonepat, had set aside the proceedings in revision vide order Annexure P2.

Learned counsel for the petitioners urges that it was an abuse of process of law that a trial is being held for an offence on the same allegations, as earlier contained in proceedings under section 151 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. I, however, find no merit in the submission of the learned counsel. It is not disputed that proceedings under section 151 were on the same facts, as the impugned FIR enumerates. Security proceedings cannot be equated with a criminal prosecution. That was a proceeding for preventive measure and the impugned FIR was registered with respect to the substantive offence committed by the petitioners. The delay in lodging of the FIR has always been taken note of by all the Courts so than an unblemished version should come before them. Admittedly, the version had already come before the Court though in proceedings under section 151 of the Cr.P.C. Hence in the instant case the SubDivisional officer (Civil) had reported the matter to the Deputy Commissioner and had himself not got the case registered. If initially, the SubDivisional Officer (Civil) had not proceeded to get a case for Criminal offence registered, that is no ground for quashing of the FIR itself. I do not accept the argument that the case had been registered due to malice, as proceedings under section 151, Cr.P.C. has already ended in discharge of the petitioners. No case for interference is made out in this criminal miscellaneous petition which is hereby dismissed.