The court established that a preliminary inquiry is not mandatory for making a complaint under Section 195 of the Code, and the court has the power to make a complaint without hearing the person concerned.

G. P. Mittal, J.

1. These five Appeals arise out of an order dated 26.11.2010 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (‘ASJ’) whereby the learned ASJ held that it was expedient in the interest of justice to hold an inquiry into an offence referred to in Section 195 Cr.PC. against the Appellants and one Inspector S.B. Yadav who was officer in-charge of the Police Station (‘PS’) Jahangirpuri at the relevant time.

2. Before adverting to the facts of the instant Appeals, I may give insight into facts leading to the passing of the impugned order by the learned ASJ.

3. Dalip, Deepak, Ravinder and Vikas were prosecuted in the Court of learned ASJ for offences punishable under Sections 392/397/411/34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) on the basis of the FIR No.10/2010 registered in PS Jahangirpuri. As per the prosecution version on 9.01.2010 HC Dalip Singh, Constable Rajinder Singh, Constable Sajjan and Constable Vijender (the Appellants herein) who were posted in PS Jahangirpuri were on patrol duty. At about 5:15 A.M. when they reached Mangal Bazar chowk, Jahangirpuri, four boys were found running towards them who were being followed by one Nitin. He was shouting pakro-pakro. On this the four Appellants apprehended the four accused persons. According to the case set up in the earlier said FIR Nitin informed the four police officials that the aforesaid boys had robbed him of a mobile phone, certain cash and a purse at knife point. The four accused persons were therefore apprehended and were taken to the PS. The earlier said FIR No.10/2010 was registered. Since the allegations were very serious including the offence under Section 397 IPC which is punishable with imprisonment of not less than seven years, Deepak one of the accused persons was not granted bail for considerable time till he was acquitted.

4. The complainant Nitin who was examined as PW-2 in that case initially supported the prosecution version except on the point of identification of the accused. When his further statement was recorded under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (the Code), he gave them a clean chit stating that in fact the four accused persons had been implicated falsely at the behest of one Kuldeep. The learned ASJ referred the matter to the Commissioner of Police as false implication in grave offences was a very serious matter. Two reports dated 02.11.2010 and 26.11.2010 were submitted by the Crime Branch of Delhi police whereby it transpired that not only FIR No.10/2010 was falsely registered on the complaint of Nitin but FIR Nos.580/2009, 91/2010, 612/2009, 637/2009 in PS Jahangirpuri appeared to be filed by the same group of people. The learned ASJ therefore, while acquitting the four accused persons and awarding compensation to them opined that it was expedient in the interest of justice to hold an inquiry for commission of the offence as referred in Section 195 of the Code and therefore, proceeded to make a complaint dated 26.11.2010 under Section 195 of the Code to the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate against the Appellants and Inspector S.B. Yadav for commission of the offences punishable under Sections 193/199/209 IPC. It would be relevant to extract the observations of the learned ASJ hereunder:-

“…….Serious constitutional and human right violations have been observed by this court in the present case. None of the accused before this court who all come from very poor families, have any previous criminal record. They have suffered detention and trial for an offence they have never committed. In the words of the Hon'ble Supreme Court if civilization is not to perish in this country as it has perished in some others to well known to suffer mention, it is necessary to educate ourselves into accepting that respect for rights of individuals is a true bastion of democracy and therefore, it is necessary for the State to repair the damage done by its officers to the rights of its citizens (Ref: Rudul Sah V