JUGAL KISHORE Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The applicants accused persons by this application u/s. 482, Cr. P.C. seek quashing of proceedings in Criminal Case No. 1119/88, pending before Shri R.K. Pandey, Judicial Magistrate, Class I, Sagar alleging that they are frivolous and vexatious and amount to abuse of the process of the said Court.

(2.) Facts appearing in case diary show that the applicants are alleged to have committed house trespass into the house bearing No. 258/3, Gujarati Bazar, Sagas and have thus committed the offence punishable u/s. 448/34, I.P.C. It also appears that one Rajendra Kumar Dubey claiming to be the owner of the said house, lodged a report at the City Kotwali, Sagar on the basis of which the F.I.R. was recorded. Statement of applicant Jugal Kishor was also recorded by the Investigating Officer during the course of investigation. The applicant Jugal Kishor told the Investigating Officer that he was tenant of the house in question since last about 48 years and was at the present paying rent of Rs. 12 per month to the Income-tax Department. He also stated that the house had been attached by the Income-tax Department in 1984 where he was directed to pay the rent to the said Department. He also stated that he was paying rent of the house to the Income-tax Department since then. The Investigating Officer did not follow the clue and did not verify the correctness of the said information from the Income-tax Department. The Investigating Officer; relying on the statement of witnesses of the complainant, filed the challan before the Judicial Magistrate who took cognizance of the same and issued process to the applicants. The applicants requested the learned Magistrate to discharge them as they could not, even prima facie, be treated to be trespassers. They filed documents showing attachment of the house by Income-tax Department and receipts of rent paid by them. The learned Magistrate was of the view that the defence of the applicants could not be consider at this stage. The matter was thereafter taken to the Court of 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Sagar by filing a revision. According to the learned Judge, allegations against the applicants were supported by the F.I.R. and hence proceedings could not be quashed. That is how the matter is before this Court in this application u/s.482, Cr. P.C. invoking its extraordinary jurisdiction to prevent abuse of the process of the Court of Judicial Magistrate.

(3.) Perusal of the case diary leads this Court to hold that investigation of the case by the Investigating Officer was neither fair nor honest. Indeed it was one sided. It is, in the opinion of this Court, possible to hold that the Investigating Officer was influenced by the complainant and has therefore failed to carry out his legal duties and obligations. Section 136, Cr. P.C. confers authority on the Officer-in-charge of a Police Station to investigate a cognizable case either himself of by a subordinate Officer. Section 157, Cr. P.C. requires him to first consider whether there are sufficient grounds to undertake such investigation. Sections 160 and 161, Cr. P.C. give the Investigating Officer the authority to require attendance of witnesses and record their statement. Sections 169 and 170, Cr. P.C. establish that the Investigating Officer is required to evaluate evidence to ascertain whether it was sufficient or deficient. It is, therefore, plain that investigation of allegations made against a person is a serious and solemn exercise undertaken by the Police Officer as on the result of this investigation hanges the fate of 'personal liberty' of the person which is constitutionally guaranteed. A dishonest, unfair or one-sided investigation would therefore, violate the constitutional guarantee and justify interference by a court of law. Now, if the Investigating Officer was honest and impartial, he would have carried on the investigation with the Income-tax Department to ascertain whether the applicant Jugal Kishor was depositing rent as asserted by him and whether the house was under attachment. It requires no discussion to hold that if assertions of applicant Jugal Kishore were true, there would be no case, even prima facie of house trespass the applicants. No tenant can be prosecuted for the offence of house trespass on the allegation of entering into the tenanted premises. There is no explanation why the truth of the defence of applicant Jugal Kishor was not verified. In the absence of any explanation, there are sufficient reasons to doubt the honesty and bona fides of the Investigating Officer. Such officers and such one-sided investigations, in the opinion of this Court, not only miscarriage of justice but also hearing the police and their department into disrepute.