KAMAL RAM ARYA Vs. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) None appears on behalf of the petitioner. We have perused the writ petition. Heard the learned counsel for the State of Uttarakhand as well as State of Uttar Pradesh.

(2.) Petitioner filed a writ petition challenging an adverse entry recorded in his character roll on 7th July, 2001, after having had lost before the appellate authority as well as the revisional authority. The said writ petition was relegated to the Tribunal. When the petitioner approached the Tribunal with his claim petition challenging the said adverse entry as well as appellate and revisional orders, by the judgment and order impugned in the present writ petition, the Tribunal dismissed the said claim petition. The adverse entry, which was recorded, was pertaining to refusal on the part of the petitioner to lodge a complaint (F.I.R.) under Sections 395, 397 and 364 of Indian Penal Code along with Section 1(i) of the Prevention of Atrocities on Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act, 1989, regarding an incident which occurred on 12th August, 2000. The fact remains that on 21st November, 2000, an F.I.R. was registered in respect of the incident in question. A show cause was issued. In the show cause, it was stated that the petitioner was approached by the complainant ? Sri Ram Bharose to register the said F.I.R., petitioner refused to do so and took the complainant ? Ram Bharose to the Circle Officer and after intervention of Circle Officer, the First Information Report was registered. It was held out in the show cause that the petitioner was approached before the date the F.I.R. was registered by the complainant, but the petitioner refused to register the same. The In- charge Inspector as well as Deputy Superintendent of Police inquired into the matter separately and both of them reported that before 21st November, 2000, the petitioner was not approached by complainant ? Ram Bharose. The statement of Ram Bharose was recorded in course of inquiry, where Ram Bharose did not indicate that he had approached the petitioner before 21st November, 2000 for lodgement of the F.I.R. The conclusion, therefore, would be that on 21st November, 2000 complainant ? Ram Bharose approached the petitioner to lodge the F.I.R. pertaining to an incident of 12th August, 2000, when the petitioner had taken the complainant ? Ram Bharose to the Circle Officer and thereafter, as directed by the Circle Officer, the F.I.R. was registered. Lodgement of an F.I.R. so belatedly itself is such a matter that if before registering the same, the officer concerned takes the help of his superior, we do not think that the officer concerned acted in a manner which is not permissible. That being the situation, question of recording any adverse entry in the character roll of the petitioner by the Superintendent of Police on 7th July, 2001 did not arise.

(3.) We, accordingly, set aside the order passed by the Tribunal dated 24.09.2000, quash the adverse entry dated 7th July, 2001 and also set aside the appellate and the revisional orders respectively dated 30th December, 2001 and 11th June, 2002 and allow the writ petition to that extent.