DARSHAN SINGH SODHI Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 'Head I win tail you lose' is an English proverb, which aptly applies to the petitioner -Darshan Singh Sodhi, who is seeking quashment of F.I.R. No.181 dated 4th December, 1989 under Sections 420/466/468/471, Indian Penal Code, registered at Police Station Division No. 4, Jalandhar, along with all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom.

(2.) The case set up by the petitioner in the present petition is that he was employed with the Punjab Police in the year 1953 as a Foot Constable. Thereafter the petitioner on the basis of his hard work, honesty and integrity gained promotions and finally he rose to the Gazetted, post of Deputy Superintendent of Police. He retired from service on 30-6-1994 after attaining the age of superannuation at the age of 58 years; so much so, he was granted all consequential benefits; including pension, gratuity, provident fund etc. According to the petitioner, in the year 1953 employment was done by the Punjab Police without any basis whatsoever as not many people were willing to join that department: The petitioner also joined the Police Department and was given appointment on the basis of his physical fitness, which included medical examination. There was no advertisement by the Department. There was no invitation of applications and, in fact, there was no eligibility criterion regarding age or education. The only difference at that time was that after appointment two platoons were made of the selected candidates one called the literate platoon and the other called the illiterate platoon. Nothing was asked from the petitioner about his date of birth. However, his age in the medical certificate as well as in the service record was mentioned to be 19 years. After recruitment, the petitioner was sent for training at the Police Station, Jahankhelan, and after coming back from the training the Department sought certificate regarding educational qualification from those who were literate. The petitioner also produced his School Leaving Certificate, which showedhis date of birth as 15-6-1936. As per the School Leaving Certificate his age at the time of recruitment was over 17 years. The petitioner further states that due to contradictory dates of birth - one mentioned in the original record of the Police showing him to be of 19 years and other in the School Leaving Certificate showing his age to be 17 years at the time of the recruitment when the name of the petitioner was recommended for promotion to the post of Head constable an inquiry was marked. The discrepancy was detected in the year 1960. The inquiry was conducted under the supervision of the then Superintendent of Police, by Inspector Prithipal Singh Dhillon. The petitioner was exonerated and the necessary rectification in the service record was then recommended and made by the concerned authorities, and the date of birth of the petitioner in the service record was recorded as 15-6-1936 while scoring off 15-6-1934. Thereafter the petitioner kept serving the Department and was given all due promotions without any hindrance. He was promoted as Inspector in the year 1987. Thereafter at the instance of vested interests, a communication from the office of Director General of Police; Punjab; was sent to the Senior Superintendent of Police on 28-11-1989 which mentioned the difference of dates and sought action against the petitioner for having mis-stated facts at the time of enlistment and getting entry when he was not actually eligible. On the basis of this communication, F.I.R. No. 181 dated 4-12-1989 was registered against the petitioner under Sections 420/471, Indian Penal Code (Annexure P I).

(3.) The matter was then investigated at a high level. It was first looked into and investigated by D.S.P. Raj Kishan Bedi, and then by D.S.P. Yashpal. The case was thus filed due to lack of any evidence which would show any involvement or liability of the petitioner. The case was then put up untraced by Shri Gurdev Singh, the then S.H.O. Police Station Division No. 4, Jalandhar on 26-4-1990. Even thereafter the matter was thoroughly inquired into by the then S. P. (Detective) Harinder Singh Chahal and by another Superintendent of Police. Thereafter the petitioner was promoted as D.S.P. on 21-5-1992. Thereafter Shri Dinkar Gupta (respondent No. 2), S. S. P. Jalandhar, became inimical towards the petitioner. The background is the false involvement of the petitioner's wife, son and daughter in-law at the instance of one Sushma Sharma-a tenant in the house of petitioner's son. The F.I.R. was registered under political pressure. The petitioner met respondent No. 2 in his office to seek justice. However, respondent No. 2 misbehaved with the petitioner and even went to the extent of abusing him. The petitioner was physically pushed out of the office at the instance of respondent No. 2. The petitioner could not tolerate the insult hurled upon him in the presence of his relatives on 28-2-1996. He served a legal notice to this effect upon respondent No. 2 on 29-2-1996. The criminal case registered against the family members of the petitioner stands concluded and the accused therein have been acquitted by the concerned trial Court. Thereafter, the petitioner filed complaint against respondent No. 2 in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalandhar on 20-3-1996 under Sections 355, 500, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code. He filed another suit for the recovery of the damages to the tune of Rs. 2 lacs on 20-3-1996. Thereafter the petitioner was threatened and intimidated by various persons at the instance of respondent No. 2. A complaint was also submitted by the petitioner to the higher authorities, including the Chief Justice of this Court, and to the Governor of Punjab, and the Director General of Police, Punjab. The petitioner alleges that in order to settle the score with the petitioner, respondent No. 2 revived the case set out in the F.I.R. (Annexure P1), and without there being any incriminating evidence against the petitioner, a challan was presented against him on 11-6-1996, under Sections 420/466/468/471, Indian Penal Code. Thus, according to the petitioner, the challan has been filed for extraneous reasons. The petitioner has sought the quashment of the F.I.R. and the submission of the Police Report on the ground that he never misrepresented the facts to the Department at the time of the joining of the service; that the filing of the challan is an abuse of the process of the Court; that there is an inordinate delay on the part of the respondents in the lodging of the F.I.R. as well as in the submission of the challan and that there is an unexcusable mala fide allegedly committed on behalf of respondent No. 2.