SADA NAND CHAUHAN Vs. STATE OF H.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition under Section 182 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (here-after referred to as the 'Code') and Article 227 of the Constitution of India praying for directing the Respondents to register a case under Sections 448, 449, 450, 452, 455, 307 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code and also under the appropriate Section of the Indian Arms Act and to investigate the same. It has further been prayed that since the local police is very much mixed up with the other side and is working under their influence, therefore, the investigation may be directed to be conducted by the CBI so that independent investigation is ensured.

(2.) The case of the Petitioner as made out in the petition is that he is a resident of Snow View Estate located at Cart Road, Kaithu Shimla. On the night intervening 21st/22nd of July, 2000 when he along with his son Nitin Chauhan and others was sleeping in his residential premises, at about 2.25 a.m. one Anil Soni, who is living in a residential set in the same premises along with Sukhdeep Singh Dhaliwal, Babbal Dhaliwal and Rakesh Sharma forced their entry into the residential premises of the Petitioner by breaking upon the door. The said persons were heavily drunk and were armed with lethal weapons including iron rod and revolver. After unlawful entry into the residential premises of the Petitioner, the said persons used abusive language and advanced threats to the lives of the Petitioner and his son. The Petitioner and his son raised hue and cry for help whereupon said Anil Soni fired shots from his revolver on them but luckily they escaped. In the meanwhile, hearing the cries, other persons, who were sleeping in the adjoining rooms, came on the spot, saved the lives of the Petitioner and his son by snatching the lethal weapons including the revolver from the hands of the said assailants. It led to a scuffle between the assailants on one hand and the assailed and their companions on the other. Finally, the assailants bolted away by jumping through the windows. Immediately thereafter, the Petitioner at about 2.30 a.m. rang up the Police Control Room but there was no response. After about ten minutes he again rang up the Police Control Room when his call was received and he narrated the incident to the official who received the call. The Petitioner reported the matter to the Superintendent of Police, Shimla at about 2.45 a.m. Thereafter a police party reached the spot on the same night and the incident was narrated by the Petitioner to the Officer-in-charge, Police Station, Sadar (here-after referred to as 'Respondent No. 3') and then to the Superintendent of Police (hereafter referred to as the 'Respondent No. 2') who had also visited the spot. Despite the information about the occurrence having been given to Respondents No. 2 and 3, no case on the basis of such information was registered. On the contrary, a case under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code was registered against the Petitioner, his son and his guests who were sleeping in the premises on the relevant night. In the said case the Petitioner, his son and his guests were arrested by the police and were in police custody at the time of presentation of this petition. Since no case was registered on the report as made by the Petitioner by Respondent No. 3, therefore, the Petitioner submitted written report Annexure P-1 under Section 154(3) of the Code to the Superintendent of Police and copies thereof were endorsed to the Director General of Police, H.P. and the Respondents No. 2 and 3 through speed post vide combined receipt Annexure P-2 on July 24, 2000 at 10.51 a.m. However, despite the fact that the conduct of the assailants as reported disclose the commission of cognizable offence, no case was registered by the police nor any investigation on the information given by the Petitioner was carried out. The inaction of the police in the matter has resulted into complete miscarriage of justice and has led the Petitioner to feel that no law enforcing agency exists in Shimla. It is further averred that the action of the Respondents in not registering a case and investigating the same on the information given by the Petitioner is contrary to the mandatory provisions of law and the Petitioner is completely in a state of helplessness and has no other efficacious alternative remedy except to seek redress of his grievances regarding injustice done to him by approaching this Court under Section 482 of the Code. It is also claimed that the Petitioner is prosecuting one Pradeep Kumar, Assistant Inspector General of Police, Headquarter at Shimla by filing a private complaint against him, the entire Police Department had been exercising pressure on the Petitioner to withdraw the said complaint which he had declined. The Respondents have, therefore, become revengeful against the Petitioner and this is another reason for refusing the registration of the case by the Respondents. Hence the present petition.

(3.) The Respondents have resisted the petition. In their reply it has been averred that in fact at the relevant time when Anil Soni, his wife Madhu Soni and his friends Babbal Dhaliwal, Sukhdeep Singh Dhaliwal and Rakesh Sharma got down from their vehicle in Snow View Lodge, the Petitioner accompanied by eleven other persons forcibly dragged them inside his house and started beating them and thereby grievous injuries were caused to Anil Soni and Babbal Dhaliwal with iron rods/clubs etc. on their heads. Simple injuries were caused to Sukhdeep Singh Dhaliwal and Rakesh Sharma. Modesty of Madhu Soni was also outraged. The licensed revolver of Anil Soni was snatched by the Petitioner and others and fired upon Anil Soni but the bullet did not hit him and hit the roof of the building. It is, however, admitted that the Petitioner gave a ring to the Police Control Room. The Mall. Shimla at about 2.30 a.m. regarding scuffle in Snow View Lodge. On receipt of this information, the Control Room informed the Police Station, Sadar and other Senior Officers. At 2.30 a.m. Incharge, Police Post Lakkar Bazar was also informed about the incident. However, the Police Control Room had already received a telephonic call from Madhu Soni at 2.25 a.m. narrating the incident and on receipt of such information, a police party, headed by Sub-Inspector Prem Chand, Incharge Police Control Room, The Mall Shimla had immediately rushed to the spot along with other staff. The Additional Station House Officer, Police Station, Sadar also reached the place of occurrence soon thereafter. Receiving of a telephonic call from the Petitioner by Respondent No. 2 at about 2.45 a.m. is admitted and it is averred that Respondent No. 2 assured him that police party had already reached the place of occurrence. The police party on reaching the spot found Anil Soni, Babbal Dhaliwal, Sukhdeep Singh Dhaliwal and Rakesh Sharma in injured condition in a pool of blood and in serious condition in the room of the Petitioner. They were immediately removed to the hospital. Madhu Soni presented a written complaint to Sub-Inspector Gulam Mohd. on the spot and on the basis of this, case FIR No. 241/2000 under Sections 307, 147, 148, 149, 354 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code was registered at Police Station, Sadar. It is, however, admitted that the spot was visited by Respondent No. 2 and the incident was also narrated by the Petitioner to the Additional Station House Officer and Respondent No. 2. However, from the spot inspection, statements of witnesses and investigation, no case was prima facie found having been committed by Anil Soni and his companions. Therefore, no case was registered in the interest of justice. The arrests having been made as averred in the petition, have been admitted but it has been averred that at the time of filing reply the Petitioner and his companions (accused in FIR 241/2000 supra) had been bailed out by competent Courts. Making of the complaint Annexure P-1 by the Petitioner has also been admitted and it has been averred that the contents of this complaint were recorded in the daily diary vide DD No. 39 dated July 24, 2000 but no case was registered on this complaint in view of the provisions contained in Rule 24.4 of the Police Rules and Section 157 of the Code as the complaint was contrary to the facts. The allegations of helping the other party being influential persons as averred in the petition have been denied. It is though admitted that even the contents of complaint Annexure P-1 disclose the commission of cognizable offence but the non registration of a case has been justified as per the rules and laws and it has been claimed that the present petition is not maintainable.