Prashant Manchanda vs Lt. Governor Of Delhi And Anr.

Prashant Manchanda vs Lt. Governor Of Delhi And Anr. on 30/3/2007

JUDGMENT

Shiv Narayan Dhingra, J.

1. This petition has been made by the petitioner under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for issuance of directions to the respondent No.2to register an FIR against Mr. K.K. Paul, Commissioner of Police, Delhi under Section 306 of Indian Penal Code on the basis of complaint dated 16th October, 2006 made by the petitioner to SHO Police Station Mukerjee Nagar, respondent No.2, on the ground that the police was duty bound to register an FIR whenever a complaint is made to the police in view of the judgment of Supreme Court in Ramesh Kumari v. State(NCT of Delhi) . The petitioner has quoted paragraphs 31, 32 and 33 of the said judgment and submitted that SHO was obliged to register an FIR under Section 154 of Cr.P.C.

2. Brief facts relevant for the purpose of deciding this petition are that father of the petitioner Mr. Davender Manchanda (hereinafter referred as to 'the deceased') was an Inspector in Delhi Police. While he was posted at Police Station Kashmiri Gate, he was entrusted with an inquiry in respect of a complaint made by one Syed Ahmad son of Hafeez Zahoor Ahmad. After making preliminary investigation in respect of this complaint, he got an FIR registered being FIR No.453 of 2004 dated 17th September, 2004 under Sections 420, 448, 467, 471 and 120B of IPC, on the basis of allegations made by the complainant regarding trespass, cheating, forgery etc. in respect of properties bearing Nos. 28 and 29, Alipur Road, Delhi, against Satish Chander, Satya Prakash and Vineet Aggrawal. It would be worthwhile to note that the alleged accused persons were living in those properties for more than 47 years at the time of registration of FIR and they claimed ownership on the basis of registered sale deeds.

3. After the FIR and during investigation, the deceased Inspector issued notice to Vineet Aggarwal and Others. However, this notice was issued at 24- Alipur Road, which was not the residence of Vineet Aggarwal and which was not the property in dispute. Vineet Aggarwal learnt about the notice from occupants of 24, Alipur Road and after learning about the registration of the FIR against him and others in respect of property in which they were living for about 47 years, he along with title documents and other material in his possession, approached the Commissioner of Police to plead that that somebody was deliberately playing fraud in order to grab their properties in connivance with the police. He made certain allegations against the Investigating Officer i.e. the deceased Inspector. Vineet Aggarwal met Mr. K.K. Paul, Commissioner of Police on 11th October, 2004 and it seems that after considering the allegations and the material, the Commissioner of Police sent him to Joint Commissioner of Police with directions to look into the matter. The Joint Commissioner of Police also considered allegations and the material with Vineet Aggarwal and he transferred the investigation of the case from the deceased Inspector to Vigilance Department by a verbal order and the officer from Vigilance Department was immediately called and the deceased Inspector was asked to hand over the entire record to him. On next day, the deceased Inspector was placed under suspension. A formal complaint dated 12th October, 2004 was made by Vineet Aggarwal to Commissioner of Police in respect of his allegations. After placing the deceased Inspector under suspension, a departmental inquiry was initiated against him vide an order dated 19th January, 2005. A summery of allegations was supplied to him on 27th January, 2005. The deceased Inspector challenged the initiation of departmental inquiry against him and he moved Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) and filed an OA being OA No.400 of 2005. In the OA, he made certain allegations against the Commissioner of Police and other officials of police. He also made allegations against Joint Commissioner of Police. The CAT vide its order dated 13.12.2005 made following observations:

9. The respondents have issued summary of allegation to the applicants informing him how according to them he had committed misconduct. It is open to the applicant to give all his defense to the authority concerned by way of his evidence including the order of probate given in favor of Sh. Sayed Ahmad relied upon by applicant. It is settled law that at the stage of chargesheet or summary of allegation in this case, the Tribunal cannot interfere unless it is shown that the charge sheet is issued by a person, who had no jurisdiction at all or the charges framed are absolutely not sustainable being in violation of law. It would be relevant to quote the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of UOI V. Upendra Singh wherein it was held that

Tribunal has no jurisdiction to go into the correctness or truth of the charges. The Tribunal cannot take over the functions of the disciplinary authority. The truth or otherwise of the charges is a matter for the disciplinary authority to go into. 10. In view of the above judgment we do not wish to interfere in the case at this stage. However, it is made clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case and all the points will be open to the applicant for taking them before the Enquiry Officer, in order to defend himself. It goes without saying that full opportunity would be given to applicant in accordance with the rules to defend himself and the authority shall pass a reasoned and detailed order dealing with all the points raised by the applicant. In case applicant is still aggrieved by the orders passed finally, it shall be open to him to challenge those orders at that stage.

4. Since the deceased Inspector had moved CAT soon after the summary of allegations was issued to him and a stay order was granted by CAT against departmental proceedings on the request of deceased Inspector, the departmental inquiry did not proceed further. The order of CAT was further challenged by the deceased before this Court vide W.P.(C) No.2762 of 2006 and a Division Bench of this Court upheld the order of the CAT and dismissed the writ petition vide an order dated 27.02.2006.

5. From the record, it appears that during enquiry, the deceased sought certain documents from the department and he also made complaints to CVC, Chief Justice of India and Chairman, Human Rights Commission on 19th August, 2006 seeking their intervention in the inquiry against him. CVC, it seems, sent the complaint of deceased Inspector to Joint Commissioner, Vigilance for necessary action. CVC, vide letter dated 4th October, 2006 informed the deceased that his complaint has been forwarded to Joint Commissioner, Vigilance. After receiving this letter from CVC, the deceased Inspector decided to commit suicide. He prepared a suicide note on 10th October, 2006 and addressed the same to Rajat Sharma, India TV, Noida. In this suicide note, he stated that he was going to end his life on 12th October, 2006, which he actually did. For his committing suicide, he held the Commissioner of Police responsible. He made allegations that Commissioner of Police acted under the directions of the then Home Minister and transferred him from the investigation on same day and placed him under suspension on 12th October, 2004 This action of Commissioner of Police was brutal, actuated by mala fide and extraneous reasons. He also alleged that working style of Commissioner of Police demonstrated favoritism. Commissioner of Police launched vulgar campaign against verifications of all aspects relating to the claim of Mr. S.P. Aggarwal and his family. The other allegation made against the Commissioner of Police is that Commissioner of Police made an order dated 10th December, 2004, for cancellation of case registered on the complaint of Sayed Ahmad for which he had no powers and the powers vested entirely in domain of judiciary. The Commissioner of Police committed purgery and falsification of records. He and other police officials indulged into corrupt practices and abused the powers vested in them for advantage of the persons of their choice with mala fide and ulterior motives, selling his character and injuring his reputation and exposing him to social ridicule. He further wrote in this so called suicide note that CVC had decided not to take any action on his complaint, rather entrusted his complaint to some one working under the Commissioner of Police. This action of CVC had put him under strain and, therefore, he has decided to commit suicide after one week from date of the letter received from CVC to demonstrate, that Joint Commissioner of Police(Vigilance) entrusted with the matter has violated the statutory law in not getting the case registered and that CVC has acted contrary to condition that a subordinate cannot be expected to act against his 'Boss' irrespective of requirement of law. So, he cannot wait since the Commissioner of Police has made his life miserable and acted malafidely, with malice in his working style and ill-will.

6. The deceased Inspector also wrote a letter to God almost in similar language. After the death of deceased Inspector, his son made a complaint to SHO Police Station Mukerjee Nagar. Along with complaint, he attached a copy of suicide note addressed to Rajat Sharma and requested for registration of an FIR against the Commissioner of Police.

7. I have heard Mr. R.K. Kapoor learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Gopal Subramanium Addl. Solicitor General, on behalf of State. Both sides also filed written submissions. It is argued by learned Counsel for the petitioner that the police was duty bound to register a case once a complaint is made, as laid down by the Supreme Court in Ramesh Kumari v. State (Supra) since the police cannot go into the genuineness or otherwise of the information and the same can be considered only after the registration of the case. The police officer is duty bound to register a case on a complaint of a cognizable offence by a citizen under Section 154 of the Cr.PC. He further relied upon 2006 VII AD(Delhi) 350 Dinesh Kumar v. State where this Court held that it is not for the police to first ascertain whether dying declaration is corroborated or not because the duty of the police is to register an FIR on the basis of, prima facie, incriminating material against the accused persons. He submitted that the suicide note of the deceased Inspector comes within the purview of Section 32 of the Evidence Act (2006-(112)-Cr.L.J-0027-AP) and the court while deciding a petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is not expected to screen evidence or to apply the standard as to whether or not the prosecution will be able to prove the case against the accused on trial (1999(105) CRLJ 4525-DEL).

8. Section 154 of Cr.P.C reads as under:

Information in cognizable cases.-(1) Every information relating to the commission of a cognizable offence, if given orally to an officer in charge of a police station, shall be reduced to writing by him or under his direction, and be read over to the informant; and every such information, whether given in writing or reduced to writing as aforesaid, shall be signed by the person giving it, and the substance thereof shall be entered in a book to be kept by such officer in such form as the State Government may prescribe in this behalf.

(2) A copy of the information as recorded under Sub-Section(1) shall be given forthwith, free of cost, to the informant.

(3) Any person, aggrieved by a refusal on the part of an officer in charge of a police station to record the information referred to in Sub-Section (1) may send the substance of such information, in writing and by post, to the Superintendent of Police concerned who, if satisfied that such information discloses the commission of a cognizable offence, shall either investigate the case himself or direct an investigation to be made by any police officer subordinate to him, in the manner provided by this Code, and such officer shall have all the powers of an officer in charge of the police station in relation to that offence.

9. There is no dispute that that the police is duty bound to register an FIR if an information relating to commission of a cognizable offence is given to the officer in charge of police station either orally or in writing. However, the mandate of the above provision is that the information must be in respect of commission of a 'cognizable offence'. It implies that when an information is given either orally (which is reduced in writing by the police officer) or in writing to the police officer, the facts stated in the information should prima facie show that a cognizable offence has been committed within the jurisdiction of police station and police should swing into action. The commission of a suicide is not a cognizable offence. A person who commits suicide goes beyond the cognizance of police. What is cognizable in suicide is the abetment to commit suicide. Therefore, the complaint made by the complainant must disclose abetment of commission of suicide by the person named therein before an FIR can be registered. Mere allegations by person committing suicide that he is committing suicide because of XYZ without making out a case how his suicide has been abeted by XYZ, an FIR cannot be registered. For example if a person commits suicide leaving behind a note that he got desperately disappointed because of the poor performance of the Indian cricket team in World Cup and he was mentally tortured because of the performance of certain players and he considered that their selection was bad in the cricket team, the selectors of the cricket team acted in a biased manner while selecting the team which could not perform and they were responsible for his suicide, should the police register an FIR against the selectors of the cricket team or against players for abetment of suicide' Another person may commit suicide alleging that the policies of the Government or the Finance Minister in allowing SEZ has ruined the farmers and shall ruin the nation, the Ministers has acted in a most mala fide manner for their personal gains, he lost his land to some SEZ, for alleged inadequate compensation, he commits suicide writing a note that the Cabinet was solely responsible for this; Should the police register an FIR against the Cabinet' A third person commits suicide, making allegations of bias etc. against the Judge who delivered a judgment against him and makes him responsible for his suicide, should the police register an FIR' Such examples can be multiplied.

10. In the instant case, the immediate reason for commission of suicide, as disclosed from the suicide note of the deceased, was a letter written by CVC to the deceased that his complaint has been sent to Joint Commissioner of Police(Vigilance) for investigation. He decided to end his life on receipt of this letter and fixed the date of his suicide as 12.10.2006. He committed suicide since he wanted to demonstrate to CVC that a junior cannot investigate a complaint against his senior. So, should an FIR be registered against CVC' I think this is not the ratio of the judgment of Supreme Court in Ramesh Kumari's case(Supra). The Supreme Court mandated for registration of case in those cases where the facts disclosed in complaint constituted a cognizable offence. Where all facts given in complaint even if considered absolutely true, do not disclose a cognizable offence, police is not obliged to register an FIR because some wild allegations are there in the complaint against someone. Abetment to commission of an offence is to be considered in the light of Section 107 of I.P.C.

Abetment is defined under Section 107 of IPC as under:

107. Abetment of a thing.- A person abets the doing of a thing, who- First.- Instigates any person to do that thing; or Secondly.- Engages with one or more other person or persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing, if an act or illegal omission takes place in pursuance of that conspiracy, and in order to the doing of that thing; or Thirdly.- Intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing.

Explanation 1.- A person who, by willful misrepresentation, or by willful concealment of a material fact which he is bound to disclose, voluntarily causes or procures, or attempts to cause to procure, a thing to be done, is said to instigate the doing of that thing. Explanation 2.-Whoever, either prior to or at the time of the commission of an act, does anything in order to facilitate the commission of that act, and thereby facilitate the commission thereof, is said to aid the doing of that act.

11. In order to attract Section 306 IPC, the person to abet commission of suicide must do an overt act or some act which instigates the victim to commit suicide. The act so performed must be the immediate cause of the suicide. Here, in this case, Commissioner of Police had suspended the deceased Inspector on 12th October, 2004 The deceased Inspector committed suicide exactly after two years. The suspension was done by the Commissioner of Police as an official act which he was authorized to do under law. Every head of department is supposed to initiate disciplinary action against subordinates when commission or omission of such acts are brought to his notice which prima facie show dereliction of duty or mala fide actions.

12. I have gone through the material placed before this Court by both sides and it cannot be said that the Commissioner of Police acted merely on the basis of whims and fancies, without any material being there for suspending and initiating the inquiry. I consider that it is not necessary for this Court to go into the truthfulness of the allegations made by the deceased Inspector or into the truthfulness of allegations made by State against the deceased Inspector because that would amount to transversing the area which is not called for. Suffice it to say that the action of the Commissioner of Police prima facie was not without any basis and thereafter a departmental inquiry in accordance with law was initiated to give an opportunity to the deceased Inspector to put forward his version of defense. This departmental inquiry could not take off because of the action of the deceased Inspector who obtained stay order against the departmental inquiry and the said order continued for more than one year. I consider that the deceased had full opportunity to prove his innocence and his insistence that the departmental inquiry should not be held at all and that he was being malafidely dragged into an enquiry and his name was being slurred, cannot be a ground to hold that there was an instigation on the part of Commissioner of Police to abet the commission of suicide, even prima facie. The official acts are protected under Sections 76 to 80 of IPC. When a head of department or disciplinary authority suspends a subordinate, in the capacity of head of department, in exercise of powers conferred upon him and acts in accordance with law, the allegations of bias and malafides on the disciplinary authority or on the head of department, do not make the act having been done in bad faith nor such allegations change the character of the act. If the character of an official act is supposed to change by allegations, then no government official would ever be able to take a decision in case of any subordinate, howsoever corrupt he may be, howsoever insubordinate he may be. The allegations of mala fide are easy to make. The act done by an officer who has reasonably acted within the authority of law, is an official act and is protected under law since it is an act as per law. The act done by an officer as per law, cannot be judged on the basis of its end effects and results. An act has to be judged on the basis of circumstances prevalent at the time when the act was done. The act of suspending the deceased Inspector was done by the Commissioner of Police in October, 2004 and the inquiry was initiated as a result of this act in January, 2005. Merely because after about two years, the deceased Inspector committed suicide, the act done by the Commissioner of Police cannot be considered an act done with malafide intention. An offence under Section 306 IPC cannot be said to be committed because there is a relationship between the official Act and commission of suicide. Offence under Section 306 of IPC is made out only if an 'instigation' on the part of someone is shown.

13. The petitioner has failed to show that his complaint or suicide note prima facie discloses commission of a cognizable offence under Section 306 IPC or under any other provision of penal laws requiring registration of an FIR and further investigation.

14. In view of my foregoing discussion, I find no force in this writ petition. The petition is hereby dismissed.