UMA SHANKAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the counsel for the petitioners and the counsel appearing for the State.

(2.) This application has been filed for quashing the first information report of Dhaka P.S. Case No. 21 of 2006 which has been instituted by one Badri Nath Sharma, Assistant Sub Inspector of Police, Pachpakri Out Post, alleging commission of offence under Sec. 196 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 25 (1-B)A and 26 of the Arms Act. Petitioners are named in the first information report as accused. The facts behind institution of this case as stated in this application is that earlier Uma Shankar Singh (petitioner no. 1) had instituted Dhaka P.S. Case No. 138 of 2005 on 27.10.2005 alleging commission of offence under Sections 448, 341, 323, 307, 504 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code and 25(1-B)A and 26 of the Arms Act naming Ram Singh, Raju Singh and Jai Shree Singh as accused. This case was investigated by Badri Nath Sharma, Assistant Sub Inspector of Police, Pachpakri Out Post. During investigation, when the petitioner (informant of Dhaka P.S. Case No. 138 of 2005) found that the Investigating officer has gone in connivance with the accused persons. He filed a protest petition before the Magistrate. In the protest petition allegations were made against the investigating officer regarding demand of some money. On completion of the investigating, final report no. 28 of 2006, dated 21.02.2006, was prepared. Before its submission in the Court on 21.02.2006 itself Badri Nath Sharma instituted Dhaka P.S. Case No. 21 of 2006 naming petitioners as accused for commission of offence under Sections 196 of the Indian Penal Code and 25 (1-B)A and 26 of the Arms Act. So far the final report in Dhaka P.S. Case No. 138 of 2005 is concerned, it was submitted in the Court after institution of the first information report of Dhaka P.S. Case No. 21 of 2006. The Magistrate did not accept final form and took cognizance against the accused persons named in the first information report deferring with the final form. On the other hand, in an anticipation of acceptance of final form, present case, Dhaka P.S. Case No. 21 of 2006, has been instituted.

(3.) Petitioners have challenged the very institution of the first information report on the grounds that it is malicious, vexatious and totally against the provisions under the Criminal Procedure Code. The first ground which has been taken by the petitioners is that in case the investigating officer found that first information report which was instituted by the petitioners was false, he should have submitted the prosecution report before the Magistrate making a requisition for initiation of a case against the informant and witnesses for commission of offence under Sections 182 and 211 of the Indian Penal Code. The Investigating Officer under the Criminal Procedure Code has got no jurisdiction to institute separate first information report alleging commission of offence under Sec. 196 of the Indian Penal Code which relates to using evidence known to be false. The institution of the first information was malicious considering the fact that in the protest petition the informant (petitioner no. 1) had made allegation against the investigating officer. The investigating officer was bent upon to give protection to the accused persons. Further it has been submitted that the first information report has been instituted for such allegations which is non-existent considering the fact that in Dhaka P.S. Case No. 138 of 2005 the Magistrate has taken cognizance deferring with the final form. Since the final form was not accepted there was no reason for institution of the first information report for commission of offence under Sec. 196 of the Indian Penal Code, on this count the first information report is fit to be quashed.