JUDGMENT R.S. Sodhi, J.
1. Rule D.B.
By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners pray for a mandamus quashing FIR No. 481 of 1997 registered with Police Station, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi, under Section 406 IPC and further seek a declaration that the respondents are acting in abuse and excess of authority conferred by law and are subjecting the petitioners to harassment of criminal proceedings without there being any sufficient ground for taking any action against the petitioners.
2. Brief facts of the case are that an information was given in writing by Govind Singh Bisht, authorised signatory of Viacom Electronics Private Limited, to the Station House Officer, Police Station, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi, to the effect :
"VIACOM Electronics (P) Ltd. office: D-96, Shib Ram Complex, Munirka, New Delhi -110067. 06th November, 1997 Station House Officer Police Station Vasant Vihar New Delhi Reg. Non-delivery of consignment Dear Sir, we inform you that we had sended consignment of 400 video cassette recorders and 80 sets of 29'Colour TV with remote and wafer totalling 417 packages to M/s. Road Transport Carriers transportation having to office at G-17, Vijay Nagar (Near Delhi University) Delhi - 110009 vide our transfer note no.063 dated 14/10/97 valuing Rs. 25,73,772/- approx. for Guwahati in Assam. They had picked up above consignment from our godown at 36 community centre basant lok vasant vihar New Delhi. They send their vehicle No.DBL-4365 and loaded the consignment, in the vehicle. They had issued us Lorry Receipt No. 52806 dated 14/10/97 for the same. Normally it takes about 10-12 days for the consignment to reach Guwahati and we thought because of Diwali Holiday it might take a little longer time. We have been waiting for the consignment to reach Guwahati for last 3-4 days but the consignment had still not reached. We have been following up with the above transporter for the last one week about the material and every time they tell us that the consignment will reach Guwahati any day.
Today when we took up the matter personally with the owner of the transport, Mr. Mahinder Gupta and his father r/o flat No. 6 Rajmahal Apartment, 43, Rajpur Road, Delhi, we were shocked to learn that the consignment was never sent to Guwahati and is under their custody. It is clear case of breach of trust and forgery on part of Mr. Mahinder Gupta and his father who are owner of Road Transport Corporation. We would be grateful if you please help us, in receiving our consignment photocopies of L.R. No. 52806 and transfer note No. 060 enclosed herewith for your information vehicle No. DBL-4365 which picked up the material from us is in the name of Mr. Raj Ravi R/o A-59, Village Kilokari, New Delhi. Thanking you, yours faithfully for Viacom Electronics Pvt. Ltd. Govind Singh Bist Authorised Signatory.
3. The Station House Officer satisfying himself that the information disclosed a cognizable offence and that it satisfied the requirement of Section 154(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, entered the substance thereof in the prescribed form, that is to say, to register a case on the basis of such information. The petitioners, being aggrieved of the registration of the First Information Report, have sought to challenge the same by way of this writ petition on the grounds, inter alia, that institution of the First Information Report is malacious with ulterior motives based on inherently improbable allegations not constituting any offence against the petitioners. The petitioners have also submitted that it was incumbent upon the Station House Officer to first give an opportunity to the petitioners before recording the First Information Report and proceeding with the investigation. Learned counsel for the petitioners sought to place before us material which, he claims, ought to have been considered by the Station House Officer before being satisfied that the information supplied to him by the respondents was sufficient to warrant an investigation as envisaged under Section 154(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
4. We have heard elaborate arguments from both the sides and given our careful thought to the whole matter. The law regarding the procedure prescribed and the duties of the Officer In-charge of the Police Station before he enters into the realm of investigation of a cognizable offence at the stage of registration of the offence under Section 154(1) have been dealt with elaborately by the Supreme Court in various decisions.
5. The requirement is that the Officer In-charge of the Police Station before proceeding to investigate the facts and circumstances of the case should have reason to suspect the commission of an offence which he is empowered under Section 156 to investigate. In other words, the condition precedent to the commencement of the investigation under Section 157(1) is that the police officer should have reason to suspect the commission of a cognizable offence which has to be, prima facie, disclosed by the allegations made in the First Information placed before the Police Officer under Section 154(1).
6. From the above it is clear that commencement of investigation by a Police Officer is subject to two conditions, firstly, the Police Officer should have reasons to suspect the commission of a cognizable offence as required by Section 157(1) and, secondly, the Police Officer should subjectively satisfy himself as to whether there is sufficient ground for entering on an investigation even before he starts an investigation into the facts and circumstances of the case as contemplated under clause (b) of the proviso to Section 157(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Having once satisfied himself even if some of the allegations do suffer from vagueness and lack of particulars, the matter would be examined only during the course of investigation and thereafter by the Court upon all material collected and placed before it by the investigating agency. The learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the First Information Report ought to be quashed as the same discloses no offence and is mala fide exercise of power. We are unable to agree with the submission of the learned counsel. Although the powers of the court to quash a First Information Report are not in dispute, yet it is well settled in a catena of decisions of the Supreme Court that in exercise of this power to quash a First Information Report or a complaint, the Court would have to proceed, inter alia, on the basis of the allegations made in the complaint or the documents accompanying the same. Per se it has no jurisdiction to examine the correctness or otherwise of the allegations. The legal position is well settled that when a prosecution at the initial stage is asked to be quashed, the test to be applied by the Court as to whether the uncontroverted allegations, as made, prima facie, established the offence. In State of Bihar and Others Vs. Murad Ali Khan, , the Supreme Court held that the jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has to be exercised sparingly and with circumspection, the Court should not embark upon an inquiry as to whether the allegations in the complaint are likely to be established by evidence or not. In State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal 1992 Crl. L.J. 527 the Supreme Court gave a note of caution to effect that the power of quashing of criminal proceedings should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases: that the Court will not be justified in embarking upon an inquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the First Information Report or the complaint and that the extraordinary or inherent power do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the court to act according to the whims or caprice.
7. Applying the tests laid down in the above discussion to the present case, we are of the opinion that the dominant purpose of registration of case and the intended follow up action are only to investigate the allegations and present the case before the court if sufficient evidence in support of the allegations are collected. Therefore, on reading of the "information" which is the basis of the complaint to the Station House Officer, it cannot be said that no cognizable offence is made out and the process of investigation could not be put into motion. What charge is to be framed will depend upon the material collected and placed before the Court. It is not the requirement of law that the Station House Officer must first examine all material including any that may be placed as defense, before entering the substance of the information disclosing a cognizable offence in the prescribed form i.e., to register the case on such information.
8. We are unable to see any substance in the submission of the learned counsel that the case smacks of malice and, therefore, the First Information Report should be quashed. The only material to be considered is the information and material placed along with it, if any, which in this case is sufficient to warrant an investigation in accordance with law. Having, therefore, considered all aspects of the matter, we are of the opinion that the writ petition is devoid of any merit and the same is accordingly dismissed and the Rule is discharged.
[R.S. Sodhi] Judge February 4, 2000 [Anil Dev Singh] jt. Judge
9. Learned counsel for the petitioners is apprehensive that due to the dismissal of the writ petition, petitioner No.1 Mahavir Prasad Gupta, shall be arrested. He prays that the operation of the judgment passed by us with regard to the arrest of petitioner No. 1, Mahavir Prasad Gupta, should be stayed for a period of 5 days.
10. Having regard to the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner the arrest of petitioner No.1, Mahavir Prasad Gupta, is stayed for a period of 5 days. A copy of this order be sent to the Superintendent, Central Jail, Tihar, New Delhi.