SUMANT RAI Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing First Information Report No. 10 dated 5.1.1990, under Section 364 IPC. Police Station City Karnal, and the investigation being carried out under the said report as abuse of the process of Court. The First Information Report in question was lodged by Babu Ram by making an application dated 4.1.90. It was stated by the informant that his daughter Jeet Kaur was married to Sham Lal about 8 years earlier. On 3.1.90 i.e., one day prior to the making of the aforesaid application, it was stated, that the informant's elder son-in-law Sohan Lal who is brother of Sham Lal husband of Jeet Kaur, came and told him that Jeet Kaur was missing since 6.00 a.m. on 27.12.89. Babu Ram mad enquiries and learnt from Amir Chand and Ved Parkash close neighbours of Sohan Lal and Sham Lal sons-in-law of Babu Ram that the petitioner had developed illicit relations with Jeet Kaur and he, therefore, suspected that Sumant Rai had either hidden Jeet Kaur or murdered and disposed her of. The Police investigated the case. It was further investigated by the C.I.A. Staff. No. clue of the whereabouts of Jeet Kaur were found. Investigation was also carried out by Additional Superintendent of Police who while recording that Sumant Rai had developed illicit relations with Jeet Kaur concluded that Sumant Rai was not responsible for abducting Jeet Kaur vide his report dt. 22.3.90 submitted to the District Superintendent of Police. The police, however, even then continued harassing the petitioner with the result that he moved this Court in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 3350/M of 1990 for the grant of anticipatory bail. On 12.4.90 the investigating officer appeared in this Court and stated that the petitioner was not to be arrested in connection with the said case. In view of the statement of investigating officer this Court ordered that if the investigating agency decides to arrest the petitioner in future, they shall give him one week's notice prior to the arrest. No such notice had since been given but on 11.12.90 Inspector Lakhi Singh of the Crime Branch, Madhuban (Karnal), along with two Constables and accompanied by Murti Ram, brother of Jeet Kaur, Sohan Lal elder brother of husband of Jeet Kaur, came to the shop of the petitioner. The petitioner was abused and Inspector Lakhi Singh asked the accompanying constables to put the petitioner in their Maruti Van. The petitioner showed to him the order of the High Court granting him anticipatory bail. The police officer, however, ignored the same and humiliated the petitioner and gave him beating. He was rescued by the intervention of neighbours and passers by The Inspector left the place threatening the petitioner with dire consequences to him and members of his family. The petitioner sent telegrams to all dignatories at the levels of the State as well as country including the judiciary. On various other dates detailed in the petition, the petitioner was called by Shri Swaran Singh, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Crime Branch, Madhuban (Karnal) and made to sit the whole day there. The petitioner was thus being harassed even though the matter had been thoroughly investigated by senior officers of the police and nothing incriminating had been found against petitioner.

(2.) THE contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that on the pretext of pendency of the case at the stage of investigation, the petitioner was subjected to endless harassment and agony. He, therefore, urged that the investigation of the case be quashed as abuse of the process of Court.

(3.) QUASHING of proceedings in the Subordinate Court in exercise of the extra ordinary powers of the High Court under Section 482 is required to be done very sparingly and only to achieve one or more of the purposes spelt out in Section 482. The said power is required to be exercised for quashing the cases at the investigation stage even in rarer cases. Admittedly, Jeet Kaur had not yet been traced. No fault can be found with the police if they make bonafide enquiries and in that connections call one or more persons for interrogation. Such calling cannot, however, be converted into a means of inflicting undeserved harassment on the petitioner. It has also been of inflicting undeserved harassment on the petitioner. It has also been directed by this Court that if the police decides to a arrest the petitioner, he shall be given one weeks' notice so that he can approach the proper Court for the grant of anticipatory bail. If the police acts in disobedience of the aforesaid order, it is open to the petitioner to move an application for contempt of Court.