Rulda Ram vs State of Haryana and others

V.S. Aggarwal, J.

PetitionerRulda Ram is running an ice factory at village Kishanpure, Tehsil Thanesar, District Kurukshetra. It is alleged that there are two other ice factories in village Devidaspura owned by Amar Nath s/o Sawan Ram and Charanjit Singh son of Amar Nath. Between the petitioner on one side and Amar Nath and Charanjit Singh, there has been number of cases which are pending. As per the petitioner these two persons thought of involving the petitioner in certain cases with a view to settle the old scores. They conspired with Jai Narain, Moharrir Head Constable of Police Station Sadar, Pipli. An amount of Rs. 15,000/ was paid to Jai Narain. Jai Narain arranged two kilograms of poppy husk and on 5.10.1994, one Amar Singh son of Nand Kishore placed the said two kilograms of poppy husk in the fields of the petitioner. Amar Singh informed and MHC Jai Narain about it. In turn Jai Narain informed the officerincharge of the police station that he has received secret information in this regard. A raid was conducted and poppy husk was got recovered at the instance of Amar Singh.

The officerincharge of the police station rather than going ahead with the registration of the case, directed ASI Rameshwar Dass to enquire into the matter. ASI Rameshwar Dass submitted his report on 7.10.1994. It was favourable to the petitioner. The officerincharge of the police station personally enquired into the matter and concluded that it was Jai Narain who was really involved and the petitioner was falsely implicated. The petitioner on coming to know about it, sent a complaint to the Superintendent of Police, Kurukshetra. Affidavits of Charanjit Singh and Amar Singh were sworn that they were asked by Jai Narain to involve the petitioner in a criminal case. The Superintendent of Police, Kurukshetra submitted a report to the District Magistrate seeking permission to proceed against Jai Narain. As a result thereto Jai Narain was placed under suspension. Subsequently, the suspension order was revoked. The petitioner prays that a case should be registered against the guilty persons.

In the reply filed on behalf of the State, it has been pointed out that appropriate action after enquiry will be taken against the guilty persons.

In the separate reply filed by Amar Nath and Charanjit Singh, it was highlighted that there has been previous litigation pending between the parties. Petitioner is stated to be facing trial under Sections 406/420 Indian Penal Code at police station Thanesar. The report of the officerin charge of the police station is assailed pleading that he seemingly is bearing a grudge against Jai Narain, Head Constable.

Jai Narain, Head Constable, has filed his separate reply denying the assertion of the petitioner. According to him it is concoction and a made up affair.

It is not being disputed that there has been civil litigation between petitioner on one side, Amar Nath and Charanjit Singh on the other side. Different cases are pending between them. It becomes totally unnecessary to express opinion on the merits of that litigation because appropriate Courts will decide the same on their merits. For purposes of the present petition, it becomes unnecessary to go in those details. The present controversy basically revolves around the fact that the case as against respondent Amar nath, Charanjit Singh and Jai Narain should be registered or not.

On behalf of Jai Narain it was alleged that he is being falsely implicated and the recovery was effected without even taking a sample. Once again what is being urged pertains to the merits of the other case and not to the present dispute regarding which presently this Court would not express any opinion.

All the same the respondents took the plea that the enquiry is pending and thereafter it has to be decided whether the case has to be registered or not. Attention of the Court has been drawn towards the report of ASI Rameshwar Dass copy of which is Annexure P1. The relevant extract of the same reads :

"He told that I placed this poppy husk in the ice factory of Rulda Ram on the asking of Amar Nath and his son Charanjit Singh. On further asking he told that on 5.10.1994 Charanjit Singh had brought this poppy husk from the Munsif of the Tohana and I was asked to keep it in the factory of Rulda Ram so that he is implicated in the case. After placing the poppy husk there, I informed the Munshi Jai Narain in this regard."

A copy of the letter written by officerincharge of Police Station Sadar, Thanesar is also annexed as Annexure P2. The same findings were arrived at about payment of Rs. 15,000/ and the petitioner being falsely implicated. The relevant extract of the same is an under:

"Thereafter I enquired from Charanjit Singh son of Amar Nath, who also produced an affidavit before me saying that "I Charanjit Singh son of Amar Nath and owner of an ice factory at Ladwa Road. Rulda Ram Saini, who is resident of my village, does not have good relations with me and litigation is going on in the Courts. I had called to MHC Jai Narain to teach a lesson to Rulda Ram about a week back. Jai Narain asked for Rs. 15,000/ for this work and I gave the same amount on the next day to him in Panjabi Sweet House, Pipli. On 5.10.1994 Jai Narain MHC asked me to give some man. I sent Amar Singh Rajput to MHC Jai Narain. He further stated that despite the fact that he has given Rs. 15,000/, Rulda Ram has not been challanged."

These findings do support what is being alleged by the petitioner. It is a settled principle that when information regarding commission of a cognizable offence is given, it should be registered as First Information Report. Reference in this connection to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana and others v. Ch. Bhajan Lal and others, AIR 1992 Supreme Court 604 would be advantageous. In paragraph 32 the Supreme Court had returned the following findings :

"It is, therefore, manifestly clear that if any information disclosing a congnizable offence is laid before an officer in charge of a police station satisfying the requirements of Section 154(1) of the Code, the said police officer has no other option except to enter the substance thereof in the prescribed form, that is to say, to register a case on the basis of such information."

The above facts clearly disclose the commission of a cognizable offence, therefore, a first information report regarding it must be registered.

For these reasons, the petition is allowed and it is directed that First Information Report on the basis of information of facts given by the petitioner be registered against the accused. Nothing said herein would be taken to be an expression of opinion on merits.