MANZOOR SULTANI Vs. SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition under Section 561 -A Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner praying therein that the FIR No, 91 of 1996 under Sections 420, 468, 170 RPC registered by respondents 1 to 3 at the behest of respondent No. 4 be quashed and appropriate orders be passed in the case by imposing exemplary costs on the respondents/police agencies for lodging fictitious and false FIR against the petitioner. The facts in brief which have given rise to the registration of this FIR No. 91 of 1996 are that the petitioner claims that by way of an agreement dated 29 -02 -1992, he married with one Yasmin Hamid D/o Abdul Majid Khan, R/o Parraypora, Bhagat, and the marriage has taken place within the territorial jurisdiction of this court. Said Yasmin Majid Khan is an educated girl of thirty years of age and the marriage agreement was executed with her consent and consent of her parents. The marriage ceremony took place in presence of respectable person and Nikah were performed. It is also averred that the marriage stands consumed at and out of the wedlock, a baby namely Adeena was born who is at present of four years age. The facts of the case further reveal that the wife of petitioner Yasmin Majid is a Lecturer in the University of Kashmir. However, the relations of the parties have become strained, Yasmin refused to have marital obligation with the petitioner and also refused to live with him. This refusal is alleged without any legal justification. It is further averred by the petitioner that a suit for restitution of conjugal rights stands instituted on 07 -03 -1995 before the District Judge and same stands transferred to 2nd Additional Munsiff, Srinagar where the matter is pending disposal. Though some respectable persons tried to intervene between the parties, but the parties could not compromise. ON the other hand, as per averments, it is submitted that a false and frivolous case under FIR No. 91/1996 came to be registered against the petitioner at the behest of his father -in -law namely Abdul Majid Khan, respondent No.4 before me, with Police Station Crime Branch under Section 420, 468 and 170 RPC. It is also pleaded that the police had no powers to register or to proceed in the investigation of the case without having obtained any permission from the Magistrate of competent jurisdiction, to investigate into the offence, as because, as per averments of the petitioner, the offences complained of in the said FIR are not cognizable. Thus the police investigating agency is not empowered to investigate in the said offence, unless permission thereto has not been obtained from the Magistrate of competent jurisdiction to investigate into the offence. Respondents were put on notice. They had appeared through Additional Advocate General and have filed their detailed objections also. The averments made by the petitioner in his petition are countered by the respondents who have stated that the Sr. Superintendent of Police, Crime Branch, Officer Incharge Police Station Crime Branch and the functionaries of the Crime Branch have received written complaint on 01 -11 -1996 lodged by respondent No.4 to the effect that the person of the petition misrepresented himself as an I.A.S. Officer and on his mis -representation, he managed the complainant to believe that he is posted as Assistant Commissioner (Revenue) Muradabad, U.P. and in this background respondent No.4 i.e. the complainant was persuaded to give his daughter Yasmin Majid Khan in marriage to him, when infact the person of the accused/petitioner before me is neither an IAS Officer nor is Assistant Commissioner (Revenue), Muradabad. It is also averred that the person of the petitioner managed to extract money from all needy person with false promises of providing them Government jobs in the garb of his being an IAS Officer. It is also submitted that during the course of investigation, the photo copy of the identity card and designation as IAS Officer has been seized and besides this, further documents have also been seized, wherein the person of the accused/petitioner has projected himself to be an IAS Officer. It has been found during the investigation of FIR No. 91 of 1996 under sections 420, 468 and 170 RPC which was registered against him on the report in writing having been received, that the person of the accused -petitioner has cheated his sister -in -law by managing a fake document viz. admission letter No. DLM -86327 for her admission in M Sc. Bio -Technology at Madurai University. It is also averred by the investigating agency that the person of the petitioner in the capacity of such assumed character of being an IAS Officer has testified certain documents under Indian Passport Act in respect of one Manzoor Ahmad Khan S/o Qadir Khan R/o Lal Bazar, Srinagar. Statements of various witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C. have also been recorded, wherein it has been impersonifying himself as an IAS Officer, when infact he is not. Not only that, the petitioner has not only cheated Yasmin Majid by aluring her to enter into matrimonial relations but also cheated other persons. The petitioner had also approached Sessions Court for anticipatory bail, but same has been rejected and the investigating agency is trying to catch hold of the accused so as to complete the investigation and to produce the challan against the cuplrit before the court of law and so on. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the records before me. The averments made by Mr. Naqas that the investigation is being done by the police in a case in which offences are not cognizable without the permission of a competent Magistrate to order such investigation, are not well founded. The offence under sections 420 and 170 RPC are both cognizable under Criminal Procedure Code. It may be noted that definition of cognizable offences under Section 4(d) of Criminal Procedure Code has been given as: "Cognizable offence", "cognizable Case", Cognizable Offence" means an officer for, and "cognizable case" means a case in which a police officer may, in accordance with the second schedule or under any law for the time being in force, arrest without warrant." Under schedule II of Criminal Procedure Code, Chapter V head third, offence under Section 170 RPC is an offence wherein police officer has been empowered to arrest without warrant. Similarly an offence under Section 420 RPC has also been categorized as an offence wherein police may arrest without warrant. However, it is only Section 468 RPC which has been shown under the relevant column third as an offence wherein the police has been shown that they shall not arrest without warrant. Thus in light of the above categorization of the offence, offence under Section 420 and 170 RPC are both cognizable offences. Only offence under Section 468 RPC is not cognizable offence. Thus the police has every authority under the schedule of the Code to arrest an accused in these offences without warrant, being cognizable offences and the police can investigate in such offences without the sanction/permission from a competent Magistrate. Now the second argument that the matter is being investigated/lodged at the behest of his father -in -law who is interested in not allowing the smooth life of the petitioner to live with his legally wedded wife Yasmin Majid D/o the complainant in the matter. This argument is also not well founded. That may be one aspect of the case, but the other aspect which has surfaced during the investigation wherein assumed character of the petitioner of impersonnifying himself as an IAS Officer and Assistant Commissioner (Revenue) Muradabad and attestation of certain documents, possessing of seals in the name of IAS Officer etc. etc. and duping to certain person whose statements are alleged to have been recorded during the course of investigation require through investigation and finding of final report before the competent court after conclusion of the investigation. There is no misuse of: exercise of jurisdiction, which calls for an interference by this court under the powers vested in this court under the provisions of Section 561 -ACr.P.C. which are sought to be invoked by way of this petition. It may not be out of place to mention here that the principles governing exercise of discretion are to be used very sparingly and only unexceptional cases. A note of caution has been evolved by the courts of the country in exercise of such powers in view of the ratio laid down by different High Courts, which make out that exercise of powers under Section 561 -ACr.P.C. should be exercised with care and caution in exceptional cases, because it is of utmost importance to the administration of justice that courts should allow different functionaries in the criminal administration of justice to perform their functions freely and fearlessly, without any undue interference from outside. But nevertheless the powers to be exercised by the investigating agencies are to be monitored by the respective Magistrates who pass remain orders and have the occasion to peruse the case diaries at different intervals when the matter comes up before them for remand and otherwise. It is also relevant to mention here that investigation into a case/offence is a statutory function which is being performed by the police/investigating agency and superintendence thereto is vested in the State Government and the court is not justified without any compelling or justified reasons to interfere with such investigation, so no case where investigation is still on its way and has not been concluded due to the fact of non -availability of the accused before the investigation agency and is still at large and the investigation of the offence which have been registered against him is legally permissible and the investigating agency is Investigating into the cognizable offence alleged to have been committed by the accused, in that eventuality, it will not be permissible to stop or quash the investigation by exercise of powers vested in this court under the provisions of Section 561 -ACr.P.C. No doubt High Court is having powers to quash the investigation, but when it is satisfied that the investigation is being conducted with oblique and malafide motive or offence which is being disclosed as per averments, even does not make out a case, there is no reasonable apprehension not to speak of a prima facie case/offence having been committed, then the courts may invoke their inherent powers in such cases. Similarly, where it is shown that the investigating agency has to the utter disregard of the statutory provision started investigation into non -cognizable offence without any authority or permission having been sought from the competent Magistrate. It may also be noted that though the High Court has not to interfere with: the proceedings at the stage of investigation of a case, but if the circumstances go to show that the continuance of the proceedings which investigation would amount to abuse of the process of court, then the High Court should not refrain from interfering merely on the court or the ground that the case is at investigation stage and such instances can occur where High Courts in exercise of the inherent powers do show such indulgence. However, in the case in hand, I do not find that there is any such thing which has been brought to my notice that the investigation which is being conducted, though at the behest of his erstwhile father -in -law, is amounting to abuse of the process of investigation or process of the court, which calls for an interference in its extra -ordinary powers vested in this court. For what has been stated above, this petition is dismissed.