C482/202/2002 of ARUN KUMAR GOYAL and ORS. Vs STATE and ORS. on 29 November 2002

Criminalmisc.petitionno.194of2002

Arun Kumar & others StateofUttaranchal&others

….Applicants. Vs. ….Opposite parties AND

Criminalmisc.petitionno.202of2002

Arun Kumar State of Uttaranchal & others.

Vs.

…..Applicant.

…Opposite parties.

Hon’ble Irshad Hussain, J.

Both these petitions under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure have facts in common and therefore, these were taken up together and are deposed by a common judgment.

On 20.03.2002 petitioner posted as Sub Inspector, P.S. Kotwali City, district Hardwar alongwith other police personnel intercepted a vehicle and one person name das Vijay was arrested with illegal liquor. He was taken into custody and case was registered. On22.03.2002,SarvjeetSingh,respondentno.3lodgedareportagainst the petitioner alleging that the petitioner had under threat realized sum of Rs.50,000.00whenhehadreachedatthesceneoftheoccurrence of incident on 20.03.2002 and his driver Vijay was arrested. The petitioner had taken away the said amountina vehicle Indica car U.A. 07687 at about 9:30 A.M. At that time some other people of the trading community have also appeared and have seen the transaction.

The contention of the petitioner in brief is that the above F.I.R. againsthimwasfiledwithfalseallegationsasameasureofcounter blasttothelegalactiontakenagainstVijaytheagentofrespondent whowasarrestedforcommittingtheoffencepunishableunderthe ExciseAct.Thepetitionerinpetitionno.194of2002madeaprayer thatthefirstinformationreportlodgedagainsthimundersections 384,504,506oftheI.P.C.andsection7/13,PreventionofCorruption Act be quashed.

Subsequently Sri R.K. Nayyar, President, Bhim Goda Vyapar Mandal,districtHardwarsentacomplainttotheChiefMinister,State ofUttaranchal,whereinitwasallegedthathehadbeenthreatenedwith dire consequences by the petitioner sub inspector who want the complainanttochangehisversioninregardtotheoccurrencein which sum of Rs. 50, 000.00 was extorted in his presence from SriSarvjeetSingh.Thecomplainantisallegedtohavesupportedthe incidentandhewasalsonamedasawitnessofthatoccurrence.The copy of the complaint was also sent to the higher government officials and ontheirinstanceF.I.R.no.506of2002,undersection506of I.P.C.wasregisteredagainstthepetitioneron28.06.2002.With referencetothisF.I.R.thesecondpetitionno.202of2002wasfiled with a prayer to have the said F.I.R. quashed.

HeardSriArvindVashishtha,learnedcounselforthepetitioner and Sri R.S. Sammal, A.G.A. for the State.

Itwassubmittedbythelearnedcounselforthepetitionerthat boththeF.I.R.lodgedagainstthepetitionerwereonlymeanttoputthepetitionertoharassmentbecausethepetitionerintheexerciseofhis official duty had intercepted an accused for having committed an offenceundertheprovisionsoftheExciseActand that itwill notbe intheinterestofjusticethatonthebasisofthefalseversionofthe F.I.R.,thepetitionerisunnecessarilyputtotrialanddemoralized.On theotherhand,theargumentofthelearnedA.G.A.wasthatboththe F.I.R.primafaciedisclosecognizableoffenceagainstthepetitionerandtheallegationshavetobeputtotestbytrialtofindastowhether theoffenceisestablishedornotagainstthepetitioner.Having consideredthesubmissionsinthelightoftheversionsofthetwo F.I.R. it is pointed out at the outset that there are no cogent ground to quashthetwoF.I.R.registeredagainstthepetitioner.ThereasonisthatinviewofthespecificallegationsmadeintheF.I.R.itcannotbe saidthatnoprimafaciecasewasmadeoutagainstthepetitioner. Both the F.I.R. disclose cognizable offence. In the case of State of Haryana and others Vs. Bhajan Lal and others, A.I.R. 1992, S.C.,604,ithasbeenheldthatthepowertointerferewiththeinvestigation ofacaseshouldbeexercisedsparinglyandthattoointherarestof rarecases.InthelightoftheversionsofthetwoF.I.R.itcannotbe said that these are not rarest of the rare cases and therefore, both the petitions are liable to be dismissed.

Petitionsaredismissedaccordingly.

29.11.2002/B.

(IrshadHussain,J.)