HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH A.F.R. Court No. - 7 Case :- MISC. BENCH No. - 6043 of 2015 Petitioner :- Ghanshyam Singh Respondent :- The State Of U.P Thru Principal Secy., Home Lucknow And Ors. Counsel for Petitioner :- Sunil Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent :- Govt. Advocate,R P Singh Hon'ble Ajai Lamba,J.
Hon'ble Brijesh Kumar Srivastava-II,J.
1. The petition seeks issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari quashing F.I.R. bearing Case Crime No.201 of 2015, under Sections 147, 148, 352, 353, 332 and 504 Indian Penal Code, Police Station Karnalganj, District Gonda.
2. Perusal of the impugned F.I.R. indicates that there is an allegation that on 9th June, 2015 at about 4.30 p.m. Secretary, Department of Handicapped Welfare, Government of U. P., Lucknow was presiding over a programme in which District Magistrate, Gonda and other officers were also present. The public persons present were being informed about schemes of the Department.
3. During the proceedings, petitioner Ghanshyam Singh along with his nephew and 5-6 other persons came with Lathi and Danda and in regard to the schemes said that false things are being stated. Although an attempt was made to pacify them, however, efforts were ignored by the petitioner. The petitioner used abusive language and became violent. The programme had to be terminated. In confusion and stampede, Ghanshyam Singh and others left. The other villagers, present on the spot, informed that Ghanshyam Singh is a resident of another village. The image of the Administration had been lowered, therefore, criminal proceedings be initiated.
4. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that no offence, as alleged, is made out.Simply because the petitioner, in a public meeting, stated that false promises are being made or false schemes are being narrated, it would not indicate commission of offence.
5. The contention of learned Additional Government Advocate Shri Faisal Ahmad Khan is that the public meeting was interrupted by the petitioner and, therefore, offence has been committed.
6. Vide order dated 13th July, 2015, the investigating officer of the case was asked whether statement of the Secretary concerned, who were presiding over the meeting, the District Magistrate and other officers present in the public meeting, was recorded or not.
7. The query was raised, keeping in mind the ingredients of the offences allegedly committed by the petitioner. The presiding public servants would be the main witnesses, and victims of the offence. It is evident that the most relevant witnesses viz. the Presiding Public Servants, had not been joined in the investigation. It is only after query was raised by the Court that the statements of the said witnesses have been taken.
8. Affidavit dated 1st October, 2015 has been filed by Shri Arjun Singh, Sub-Inspector, Police Station Colonelganj, District Gonda, stating that statements of Shri Anil Sagar, Secretary, Vikas Jan Kalyan, U.P. Lucknow, Shri Ajay Upadhyay, District Magistrate, Shri Ram Sajan Chaudhary, District Panchayat Raj Officer, District Gonda, Shri Ranjeet Kumar Gupta, Block Development Officer, Gonda and Shri B.K. Singh, Sub Divisional Magistrate, Gonda had been recorded on 24th September, 2015. The said witnesses were present in the public meeting. The statements had been forwarded to the Circle Officer concerned for his approval.
9. The statements of Shri Ajay Upadhyay, Shri Anil Sagar, Shri Ram Sajan Chaudhary and independent witness Shri Ranjeet Kumar Gupta have been placed on record.
10. Another affidavit dated 30.10.2015 has been filed by the investigating officer (Sub-Inspector Arjun Singh) along with statements of Shri Ajay Upadhyay, the District Magistrate and also the statement of Shri Anil Sagar, the Secretary, which had already been brought on record with affidavit dated 1st October, 2015.
11. Learned counsel appearing for the prosecuting agency admits that other than the statement of the witnesses, which have been brought on record, there is no other evidence in support of the plea that the alleged offence has been committed by the petitioner.
12. We have considered the contention of learned counsel for the parties in context of the material placed before this Court by the prosecuting agency.
13. For consideration of the issue whether commission of offence is made out on reference to the impugned First Information Report and the evidence, we have carefully gone through each of the statements brought on record by the prosecuting agency.
14. Shri Anil Sagar, Secretary, Department of Handicapped Welfare, Government of U.P., Lucknow has given statement to the effect that a programme was going on in which other district level officers were also present. Two persons were making a lot of noise and interrupted the proceedings. An attempt was made to pacify them. Names of the persons are not known. The meeting was interrupted for sometime.
15. Shri Ajay Upadhyay, District Magistrate, who was also present, has given statement in the course of investigation to the effect that when the schemes of the Department were being narrated to the public, two persons opposed the schemes. An attempt was made to pacify them, however, they got excited and used bad language. They fled in the confusion.
16. We have also taken a judicial notice to the statement of independent witness Shri Ram Sajan Chaudhary, who has stated that when the officers were giving information about welfare schemes, the petitioner-accused along with his son came and got agitated and said that whatever information is being given, is all false. They used bad words. An attempt was made to pacify them. They took advantage of the confusion and fled. On account of disturbance the proceedings had to be stopped for sometime. Statements of other independent witnesses, Shri Ranjeet Kumar Gupta and Shri B.K. Singh are on the same line as that of Shri Ram Sajan Chaudhary.
17. We have considered the facts and circumstances emanating from the contents of the impugned First Information Report and the statements recorded by the investigating agency in the course of investigation, in context of the law as laid down in AIR 1992 SC 604 State of Haryana and others versus Ch. Bhajan Lal and others.
18. Hon'ble Supreme Court of India while taking notice of various judgments on the issue in Ch. Bhajan Lal's case(supra), has summed up as follows in paragraph 108. The said para when extracted reads as under :
"108. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such powers should be exercised.
1. Where the allegations made in the First Information Report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused.
2. Where the allegations in the First Information Report and other materials, if any, accompanying the F.I.R. do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code.
3. Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused.
4. Where, the allegations in the F.I.R. do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code.
5. Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.
6. Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party.
7. Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge."
(emphasised by us)
19. When statements of the witnesses are collectively considered, it becomes evident that Secretary, Department of Handicapped Welfare, Government of U.P., Lucknow visited the area so as to narrate the schemes of the Department. In the said meeting, the District Magistrate and other officers were also present. Allegedly, the petitioner intervened and said that the scheme, being narrated, are false and misleading. An attempt was made to pacify the petitioner. There was some confusion in which the petitioner fled. Thereafter, the proceedings continued.
20. There is not even a whisper in the entire record of investigation to indicate that hurt has been caused to any person. The presiding public servant rather has stated that the programme was interrupted for some time.
21. Allegation made against the petitioner is of commission of offence under Section 352 I.P.C. (Punishment for assault or criminal force otherwise than on grave provocation), Section 353 I.P.C. (Assault or criminal force to deter public servant from discharge of his duty), Section 332 I.P.C. (Voluntarily causing hurt to deter public servant from his duty) and Section 504 I.P.C. (Intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of peace).
22. Considering the ingredients of the offences invoked by the investigating agency in context of the evidence collected in the course of investigation, it stands established that offence has not been committed. There is not an iota of evidence to indicate that hurt has been caused to any person by the petitioner or his associate. Rather, the senior most officer present on the spot, namely, Shri Anil Sagar, who is of the rank of Secretary, has not even given a hint that any person had been injured. There is no allegation against the accused of assault or causing hurt. No such medical evidence is available which would establish that injuries had been caused.
23. Statement of the witnesses, as noted above, indicate that the petitioner raised an objection to the schemes being narrated by the senior officers by saying that the schemes are baseless and false. Investigating agency is required to consider the mindset of a rustic villager. The investigating authorities are required to consider as to whether there was any criminal intent on the part of the accused or not. It is required to consider whether the action of the accused has resulted in commission of an offence. Necessary exercise does not appear to have been done by the police agency in this case.
24. We are also of the considered opinion that there does not appear to be any intention on the part of the petitioner to commit any of the offences, as alleged. Whatever words, allegedly spoken by the petitioner, were not against any of the officers. The very purpose of a public meeting is an interaction between the public and the officers. The officers at the district level, allegedly, did not accept such interaction/criticism. Rather than justifying the schemes, there is an attempt to prosecute the petitioner, who refused to remain silent, for the right reasons or wrong reasons.
25. This case appears to be a case of intolerance on the part of the public servants. In a public meeting when it is pointed out that false schemes are being narrated, criminal proceedings have been initiated, while invoking offences of serious nature. Although no one was injured, the impugned offences have been invoked which inhere causing of hurt.
26. Circumstances and events that emerge from the investigation file clearly show that the impugned criminal proceedings have been initiated at the instance of public servants on account of their inflexibility in accepting criticism.
27. There is no material available on record of the investigating agency which can be translated into legal evidence so as to suggest commission of offence under Sections 352, 353, 332 and 504 I.P.C. Likewise there is no evidence that suggests that offence of "Rioting" as defined under Section 146 I.P.C. has been committed by the petitioner. The best case of the investigating agency is that the petitioner, in the public meeting, pointed out that the schemes that were being narrated were false. The petitioner apparently criticized the schemes that were being announced by the public servants, in a public meeting. Under the circumstance, we are of the considered opinion that offence under Sections 147 and 148 I.P.C. has also not been committed.
28. When the law on the issue of scope for quashing of the F.I.R., as referred to above, is considered in context of the facts and circumstances emanating from the record, it becomes evident that even if the allegations in the impugned F.I.R. and the statements of the witnesses are accepted, offence, as alleged, has not been committed. In the considered opinion of the Court, it is in total abuse of the authority vested in the police that impugned proceedings have been initiated. Cognizable offence has not been committed.
29. When entire material placed on record by the respondents is considered it becomes evident that the case of the petitioner is squarely covered under the first three categories detailed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Bhajan Lal's case (supra) which has been emphasised by us in the extracted portion from the judgment.
30. We are of the opinion that continuance of proceedings would be in total abuse of the process of the Court and process of the law.
31. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. Case Crime No.201 of 2015, under Sections 147, 148, 352, 353, 332 and 504 Indian Penal Code, Police Station Karnalganj, District Gonda is hereby quashed.
32. Let a copy of this order be conveyed to the concerned Magistrate and Superintendent of Police, Gonda.
Order Date :- 2.11.2015 MVS Chauhan/kkb