HANS RAJ GAGAT Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the First Information Report dated May 1, 1989 lodged at police Station Kotwali Ludhiana under Sections 302/34, 120-B and 427 Indian Penal Cole against the petitioner and also subsequent investigation in so far as the petitioner is concerned.

(2.) THE material facts are that one Parshotam Lal lodged the First Information Report (Annexure P-1) with regard to the murder of Rajesh Kumar alias Tony as a result of assault by Hem Raj, Baldev Raj sons of Puran Chand Gagat and one Gian Chand. Towards the end of the First Information Report, it was alleged, Hans Raj Gagat instigated his brother to commit this murder.Hans Raj Gagat is the real brother of Hem Raj and Baldev Raj accused and is the petitioner herein. In the petition, he has stated that he was not present at the place of occurrence and he had been implicated as he was President of Safai Karamchari Union of Municipal Corporation, Ludhiana which has a membership of 3,000 persons and there was rivalry and animosity among two party factions, one of which being led by him. It was also stated that by order dated July 12, 198) the petitioner was enlarged on bail in Criminal Misc. No 4343-M of 1989 on the conceded position of ASI Dharam Pal, Investigating Officer that no evidence had been collected against the petitioner until then.

(3.) AFTER hearing learned counsel for the parties, I find that the first leg of the arguments of the learned counsel is well founded and there is no blanket bar against the quashing of the First Information Report and consequent investigation even before a charge sheet is filed in the Court. It was so held in Vinod Kumar Sethi and Ors. v. State of Punjab and another, AIR 1982 Punjab and Haryana 372 (Full Bench). The same conclusion was reached by the Supreme Court in State of West Bengal and others v. Swapan Kumar Guha and others, AIR 1981 SC (sick) Crl. LJ 819. After a review of the previous decisions starting from King Emperor v. Khwaja Nazir Ahmed, AIR 1945 PC 18 upto Jehan Singh v. Delhi Administration, AIR 1974 SC 1146, it was concluded by their Lordships of the Supreme Court if anything, therefore, the judgment shows (referring to Khwaja Nazir Ahmed's case) that an investigation can be quashed if no cognizance of offence is disclosed by the First Information Report." Explaining the above conclusion in paragraph 21. It was observed, "It is wrong to suppose that the police has an unfettered discretion to commence investigation under Section 157 of the Code. Their right of inquiry is conditioned by the existence of reason to suspect the commission of a cognizable offence and they cannot, reasonably, have reason so to suspect unless the FIR prima facie disclose the commission of such offence. If that condition is satisfied, the investigation must go on and the rule in Khwaja Nazir Ahmed will apply The Court has then no power to stop the investigation, for to do so would be to trench upon the lawful power of the police to investigate into cognizable offences. There being no difficulty in law to quash the First Information Report even at the stage of investigation in appropriate cases, the question that remains to be decided is whether the present case is one where inherent powers of the Court should be exercised for quashing the First Information Report and the investigation based thereon. It is well settled as a result of series of decisions of the highest Court of the land that when the First Information Report, even if accepted as proved, discloses no reasonable suspicion of a commission of cognizable offence, the First Information Report may be quashed. True, that so far no evidence has been collected to substantiate the allegations that the petitioner conspired with his brothers Hem Raj and Baldev Raj to commit the murder of Rajesh Kumar alias Tony, but the significant question is whether the law has laid down any limitation on the investigation or whether the investigation has been going on for an unduly long time. As pointed out above the First Information Report itself was lodged on May 1, 1989 and I do not think that the investigation has been pending for unduly long period. Even challan against the remaining accused has not been filed in the Court. It has also 'to be remembered that conspiracy in the nature of things does not easily admit all evidence. In my view the court will not be justified in quashing the First Information Report against the petitioner and thereby stopping the powers from carrying out the statutory duty of collecting evidence, into the allegations made in the First Information Report. The present case seems to be covered by the decision in Jehan Singh's case (supra) inasmuchas if the allegation in the First Information Report is taken as correct the same does disclose the commission of a cognizable offence by the petitioner. It will be an altogether different situation if inspite of no. evidence the powers decide to present the challan against the petitioner, in that situation, the petitioner may if so advised move the Court for quashing the proceedings against him.