A N GUPTA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) From the perusal of the summoned record and after hearing learned counsel for the parties at length, prima-facie, I am of the opinion that Investigating Officer of P. S. Sodala has not conducted the fair investigation and the Final Report which was filed by him in pursuance of the FIR dt. 31-10-1991 is also beyond the scope of his powers and jurisdiction. The complainant's story as unfolded by the FIR itself is false and baseless keeping in view the fact that respondent No. 2 Smt. Koka Devi was herself guilty of an offence by having raised unauthorized construction the front side of the wall adjoining the premises of petitioner in such a manner so as to stop the free ingress and outgress of the fresh air and light into the premises of the petitioner. The report to this effect was earlier lodged by the petitioner with the JDA Officials on 26-9-1991 on the basis of which, the JDA Officials had inspected the site and directed respondent No. 2 to remove the unauthorized construction and that construction was earlier demolished which was raised at the behest of respondent No. 2. Thereafter, being aggrieved by the action of JDA Officials who had carried out the demolition of the unauthorized construction of the portion raised by respondent No. 2 in her premises, she lodged an FIR against the petitioner who is a practising Advocate of this Court on 6-10-1991 itself which was registered with P. S. Sodala on 7-10-1991. The FIR contained the false and baseless allegations which prima facie were tended to injure and harm the reputation of Shri A. N. Gupta who is a practising Advocate of this court. The falsity of the said allegation has also been proved from the statement of the accused herself recorded under Section 313, Cr. P.C. wherein, she has deposed that she had signed some blank papers at the instance of one of her friend Moni Devi who had instigated her and hence, she had lodged the FIR with the police. It obviously shows the mala fide intention of that lady in having lodged the FIR against Shri A. N. Gupta. Instead of behaving like a good neighbour, she thought that since the petitioner is a Member of the Bar, she is free to make any kind of wild allegations against him and at the instigation of some other person an FIR was lodged which is quite reprehensible. From the perusal of the Final Report dt. 31-10-1991 Exh. P/2, it is fully evident that though a clear case was made out for proceeding against the accused for commission of substantive offence punishable under Section 509, IPC it was done at a later stage of investigation apparently with a view to help the accused contrary to the evidence on the record. The witnesses who were examined by the complainant itself reveals that it was done only after filing the FR No. 200/91 that too at a stage when the petitioner preferred the complaint before the learned Magistrate after recording the evidence

(2.) In view of the falsity of the FIR filed by accused-Koka Devi against the petitioner on 6-10-1991 which fact is fully proved and established not only from the statement of the petitioner himself but also from the corroborative evidence of independent witnesses on the record, I am of the view that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against accused-respondent No. 2 as per the provisions of Section 211, IPC which stipulates, as under :-

(3.) I am fortified in my observations from the judgment of the Apex court in the matter of Sohrab v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1972 SC 2020 : (1972 Cri LJ 1302) wherein, the similar question had arisen for consideration of the Apex Court. The Apex Court laid down the parameters and guidelines to be followed by the High Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction under Section 401, Cr. P.C. observing that :-