Rajinder Singh vs Union Territory, Chandigarh

Harmohinder Kaur Sandhu, J.

Rajinder Singh Petitioner filed a suit against Union of India assailing some punishment awarded to him. In connection with that suit respondents No. 2 and 3 were summoned to appear in the Court of Shri B.C. Gupta, Sub Judge 1st Class, Chandigarh for producing some official record. Respondent No. 2 Jagdev Inder Singh being incharge of legal cell of the office of Accountant General, Punjab, was in custody of the record and Shri B.C. Malhotra was to give evidence. They appeared in court at about 1.45 p.m. and Jagdev Inder Singh produced the summoned record. Out of the four documents summoned by the petitioner, his counsel got exhibited only three documents and one document which was absence report of the petitioner was not exhibited. After giving evidence when Jagdev Inder Singh was returning to the office of Accountant General along with the files summoned from him he was followed by Rajinder Singhpetitioner. At about 2.30 p.m. when he reached near Neelam cinema, Rajinder Singh came running from behind and started abusing him. Jagdev Inder Singh tried to prevent any untoward incident but when he reached near the police post, the petitioner caught hold of him and tried to snatch the bag containing the record. He also gave him blows. A constable on duty, namely, Raghbir Singh came out of the police post and on seeing him the petitioner ran away. The constable did not chase the petitioner as he was alone in the police post. The matter was reported to the Accountant General, who advised Jagdev Inder Singh to file a complaint. A complaint was, thus, handed over to the Accountant General as well as to the police and on the basis of the same case F.I.R. No. 565 was registered on 28.8.1985. Rajinder Singh has filed this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the above referred first information report registered at Police Station, Central, Chandigarh and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom.

The petitioner alleged that he was not supplied the copies of the documents attached with the report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. nor he was given copies of the documents which he had summoned from the prosecution. The case against him was false and as such he filed a suit against respondents No. 2 and 3 and one B.S. Sandhu for damages. In their written statements in that suit both respondents No. 2 and 3 pleaded that they were not aware of the contents of the first information report registered against him. In this way they had disowned the incident alleged to have taken place on 14.11.1984. It was further contended that there was delay of 91/2 months in reporting the matter to the police and even then the copies of the documents were not supplied to him.

Respondent No. 2 in his reply stated that F.I.R. No. 565 dated 28.5.1985 was registered on the basis of the report submitted by him on 14.11.1984 to the department for taking action and for getting a case registered. After investigation challan in that case had been filed in that court and the case was fixed for evidence of the prosecution. The case had to her adjourned for arguments on an application filed by the petitioner under Section 340 Cr.P.C. alleging that he was likely to depose falsely. That application was yet pending decision when a revision petition was filed by the petitioner and the proceedings in the case remained stayed. Revision petition was subsequently withdrawn vide order Annexure R/1 and the petitioner himself was responsible for delay in the case as he was indulging in dilatory tactics. The averments made in the F.I.R. disclosed a case under Section 353 I.P.C. and there was no delay in bringing the matter to the notice of the senior officer. To similar effect was the reply filed by respondent No. 3.

I have heard the counsel for the parties.

The counsel for the petitioner assailed the first information report on the ground that there was delay in lodging the same and then there was denial of the contents of the first information report by respondents No. 2 and 3 in their written statements filed by them in a civil suit which was instituted by the petitioner against them. Both these grounds are not tenable. The incident took place on 14.11.1984 and on the same day the matter was reported by respondent No. 2 to his officer. He was asked to make a complaint in writing and the respondent contended that he made the complaint in writing to the Accountant General, Punjab as well as to the police. The first information report is not to be thrown away simply on the ground of delay. It will be for the prosecution to explain the delay if any at the appropriate stage. So far as the denial of the contents of the first information report are concerned, both the respondents in their returns admitted the contents of the same and respondent No. 2 reiterated that the incident had taken place as alleged by him and the first information report contained true facts. The petitioner had filed a suit against respondents No. 2 and 3 and one other person for damages. Copy of the plaint is Annexure P/2. In para No. 9 of the plaint the petitioner alleged that on 14.11.1984 the respondents took away absence report from the Court after the same was produced, in order to make some additions and alterations and in the F.I.R. it was mentioned that absence report was taken away from the Court. In reply to this para, respondents No. 2 and 3 contended that the allegations made therein were false and incorrect and no document out of the record produced in Court was taken away. They were, however, not aware of the contents of the F.I.R. A perusal of para No. 9 of the plaint will show that neither the date on which F.I.R. No. 565 was registered nor the police station where it was registered was mentioned therein and even if respondents No.2 and 3 denied the contents of this F.I.R. that will not mean that they had disowned the averments made in the first information report in question. As per averments made in the returns the incident did take place and after investigation challan was presented in Court. The trial Court after hearing the parties and going through the documents presented along with the report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. found that prima facie case under Sections 332, 353, 379 read with Section 511 I.P.C. was made out against the petitioner. Copy of the order is Annexure P/5 and copy of the chargesheet is Annexure P/6. Annexures P/5 and P/6 have not been assailed by the petitioner. The matter is now under judicial scrutiny and there is absolutely no reason to quash the proceedings at this stage. The petition is without merit, hence dismissed.