JUG RAJ VERMA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is a member of the Rajasthan Judicial Service and is at present serving as the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pali. According to him on 14-9-1979 a criminal case Under Sections 147, 148, 149, 326, and 323, I. P. C. , was registered at the Police Station, Sirohi, against 11 students and their bail application came up for consideration before the petitioner on 18-9-1979 when he was posted as the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sirohi. While disposing of the bail application, certain observations were made by the petitioner with regard to the investigation and a copy of the order was sent to the District Magistrate. In that case the two accused Harbat Singh and Laxman Singh were sons of some Police Sub-Inspector, Shri Zalam Singh, Deputy Superintendent of Police, respondent No. 5, showed his personal interest in that case and he wrote a letter to the Chief Medical Officer, Sirohi, for constituting a Medical Board and in the case diary one pistol was shown to have been recovered from the accused Laxman Singh and it was mentioned in the case diary that the enquiry about the licence of the pistol will be made on arrest of the accused. But the pistol actually produced in the Court, was not sealed and it was nothing but a "deepawali" toy. On these two factors the petitioner doubted the fairness of the investigation. The bail was refused to Harbat Singh and Laxman Singh. Refusal of their bail and criticism of investigation was not liked by respondent No. 5, so according to the petitioner, in order to take revenge, he started harassing the petitioner's relatives, his brother-in-law Shri Kheta Ram and his nephew Shri Mangilal. He got them arrested Under Section 151, Cr. P. C, on 17-10-1979 and they were paraded hand-cuffed in the village. The dispute was shown to relate to an agricultural field, regarding which the matter was pending adjudication before the Collector, Sirohi. According to the petitioner, both of his relatives were arrested at the instance of Shri Zalam Singh, Deputy Superintendent of Police, which fact was admitted by him before the petitioner at his residence on 2911-1979 at 8-30 p. m. Shri Mangilal lodged a criminal complaint in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, Sirohi, in respect of the alleged incident of arrest and taking of Rs. 100 from him by the police officers. It is also stated that the respondent No. 5 had threatened the witnesses with dire consequences, if they entered the witness box. The petitioner also stated that he moved an application for taking cognizance of criminal contempt against six persons, including respondent No. 5, and the Hon'ble High Court has taken cognizance against respondent No. 5 and Shri Bhairu Singh, Pahad Singh, Manak Chand Patwari and Chimana. The contempt case has been registered as D. B. Misc. Contempt No, 653/80.

(2.) AS regards the present writ petition, the petitioner made allegations against Shri Zalam Singh, Deputy Superintendent of Police, respondent No. 5, that he lodged a false and fabricated first information report at the Police Station, Barlut, in order to put undue pressure and threat on the petitioner with malicious intention, The first information report was initially sent to the Superintendent of Police, Sirohi, respondent No. 3, which was received through post at the Police Station, Barlut, and was registered as CR. No. 14 dated 9-41981 Under Sections 466, 468, 420, 225 and 109, I. P. C. According to the petitioner the delay in lodging the first information report was explained in a fantastic manner that higher officers were using pressure not to file the first information report and it was only filed when the notice of the contempt matter was served on him. The petitioner has stated that the first information report does not disclose any offence whatsoever and it was lodged only with a view to harass the petitioner. Thus, there is complete abuse of law. The petitioner has prayed that the respondents Nos. 1 to 4 may be restrained from making any investigation on the basis of the first information report Annexure 1 and the entire proceedings including the report Itself may be quashed.

(3.) NOTICE to show cause was given to the respondents, of the writ petition as well as of the stay application. The respondents Nos. 1 to 4 submitted their reply to the stay application in which it was stated that the petitioner has no prima facie case for issuance of writ of prohibition or writ of mandamus. It was averred that the mala fides is of secondary importance and the investigation cannot be shut out on the ground that the complaint is actuated with mala fides. It was also averred that at this stage, without going into the mala fides on the part of respondent No. 5, which may also be the subject matter of investigation and can be finally determined only after the investigation, investigation has to be conducted on the basis of the report even so lodged. If the complaint is found to be false and mala fide, the law will take its own course against the complainant. It was alleged that the investigation is an exclusive preserve of the executive through the Police Department and this power of the Police to investigate into the cognizable offences, is not to be interfered with by the judiciary. The Police Department is under an obligation to investigate into the alleged cognizable offence, otherwise it will be failing in its duty. If the Police Department is prevented from conducting investigation on the allegation of the accused that the complaint against him is false and mala fide, such a proposition would set at naught the entire machinery of investigation into the crime. Without investigation even the court will not be able to pronounce on the truthfulness or falsity of the charges.