Ram Lagan Singh Yadav vs State of U.P. and Others

Imtiyaz Murtaza and Amar Saran, JJ.—This writ petition has been filed for quashing an F.I.R. dated 27.8.1992 in Case Crime No. 448 of 1992 under Sections 323, 147, 393 and 341, I.P.C. and 145 Railways Act, P.S. G.R.P., Kanpur by the Petitioner, Ram Lagan Singh Yadav, who on the date of incident was a Sales Tax Officer in the Trade Tax department.

The allegations in the F.I.R., lodged by the informant Pradeep Kumar, who was a trader in silver ornaments, were that the Munsif-Magistrate, VIIIth Kanpur Nagar, had passed an order on 19.8.1992 releasing the seized silver in favour of the informant and two others. They had obtained possession of the silver in question after presenting the order before the police station concerned on 27.8.1992 at 2.30 pm. At the time of incident when the informant and other traders were trying to board the Kalka Mail train at platform No. 1, named co-accused and the Petitioner, whose name was not mentioned in the F.I.R., arrived there with five or six constables and began enquiring about the silver. Inspite of the explanation by the complainant and other traders that they had acquired the silver by court orders, the Sales Tax Officers (including the Petitioner) and other personnel began to snatch the silver from them. When their action was resisted by the traders, then the said persons attacked them. In the melee, after the batons were snatched from the police personnel, Shiv Shanker Singh, Ram Lakhan Singh and Awadhesh Singh received injuries on their heads and hands.

It was argued by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner that the F.I.R. did not disclose the name of the Petitioner and his complicity was disclosed in the 161, Cr. P.C. statement. It is well settled that an F.I.R. is only lodged for the purpose of initiating criminal proceedings against the accused and it does not require to contain all the details, and there is no reason to quash the criminal proceedings against an accused only because he has not been named in the F.I.R., and his name has subsequently come to light during investigation.

It was also argued that the Petitioner was checking the traders who was seeking to escape without maintaining lawful account in violation of Section 13A of the Trade Tax Act. In our view, this is a matter of defence which cannot be considered at this stage. Relying on Savita v. State of Rajasthan, (2005) 12 SCC 338 ; State of T.N. Vs. Thirukkural Perumal, ; S.M. Datta Vs. State of Gujarat and Another, and other cases, it has been held by the Full Bench in Ajit Singh alias Muraha v. State of U.P., Cr. Misc. Writ Petition No. 4861 of 2000, decided on 5.7.2006 that the defence and investigational material cannot be considered at this stage.

Furthermore, there is no reasonable explanation for the delay of almost 14 years in filing this petition. There is no explanation of this delay in the writ petition and only subsequently by means of a supplementary affidavit filed on 24.7.2006 it has been mentioned that the Petitioner came to know of his complicity on 5.7.2006 for the first time. The supplementary affidavit refers to an-undated report which is annexed at page 13 of the writ petition, which mentions that on 23.5.2000 (wrongly mentioned as 23.5.2006 in the supplementary affidavit) the C.B.C.I.D. enquired into the matter and found that a case under Sections 147, 393, 341 and 323, I.P.C. and Section 145 of the Railways Act was made out against the Petitioner and others. Furthermore, this report at page 13 of the petition clearly shows that even a sanction had been obtained for the prosecution of Shiv Shanker Singh, Ram Lakhan Singh and the Petitioner by the State Government. In all likelihood in these circumstances, the investigation must have been completed by now as ordinarily a sanction is taken after the completion of the investigation and preparation of the charge sheet. The sanction would also have been given by the State Government only when it was satisfied that the seizure was illegal and unwarranted and could not be defended on the anvil of Section 13A of the Trade Tax Act.

It is also intrinsically unbelievable that the Petitioner, who is a Sales Tax Officer and is presently Assistant Commissioner, Trade Tax, had no knowledge of the F.I.R. which had been lodged in this case on 27.8.1992 and where the C.B.C.I.D. had also submitted its report that an offence appears to have been disclosed against the Petitioner and others as far back as 23.5.2000. Consequently, we are not satisfied with the explanation for the delay of 13 years and 236 days in filing the writ petition.

In view of the aforesaid, the writ petition is misconceived and is dismissed.