GURPAL SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER Gurpal Singh filed an application before the SSP Jalandhar on 14.6.1995 alleging that he is the driver of truck No. HR-45/0363 (owner of which is Niranjan Singh) and that he took some materials from Gharounda to Jalandhar and reached Jalandhar on 12.6.1995. According to the complaint, when they were unloading the goods, certain persons came in a car and wanted to take the truck, and after some time, brought five Police officials from Police Station Chowki No. 5 and took the petitioner to the Police Station. The petitioner has further alleged that he was confined in the Police Station and the truck was also taken away. The petitioner has further alleged that some money was also taken from him. According to the petitioner, he had also given an application to the Directors General of Police, Haryana and Punjab on 14.7.1995 regarding this occurrence. The petitioner contends that as no FIR has been registered on his application, he is forced to approach this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for directing the official-respondents 1 to 3 to register the FIR against respondents 4 to 11 u/ss. 379, 380, 392, 395, 342, 323, 504 and 148/149 IPC.

(2.) THE third respondent has filed a reply alleging that the local Police officials reached the spot on coming tot know about the dispute between the petitioner and the employees of Mansa Advances Finance Company Pvt. Ltd., but he has denied that either the petitioner or the conductor or one Jarnail Sigh was taken to the Police Station, or, wrongfully confined in the Police Station or that any money was taken. The third respondent has also denied that the truck in dispute was handed over to the employees of Mansa Advances Finance Company Pvt. Ltd., under pressure from the Police.

(3.) I have heard the counsel for both the sides. These are not proceedings in which the truthfulness or otherwise of the complaint made by the petitioner should be either examined or decided. The petitioner has made a complaint that the vehicle which was under his control, had been taken away by respondents 7 to 11 with the help of respondents 4 to 6 by using force and their influence as police officials. The reading of the applications Annexures P-7 and P-8 discloses prima facie that there are grounds for presuming that respondents 4 to 11 have committed cognizable offence/offences. Whether the matter is settled or not, as alleged by the third respondent, is not to be decided in these proceedings and it is the duty of the concerned Police to register FIR and then proceed further in accordance with law.