Back
Gujarat High Court
Judgename :C.K.BUCH
PRATAPBHAI PUNJABHAI ASARI - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT - Respondent
CRI.M.A. 4584 of 1997
Decided On : 03/17/2005
Complaint - Preparing false Panchnamas and getting false entries made in Police Station Diary whether falls with in the purview of Section 161(1) of Bombay Police Act.
Head Note :
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (Central Act 2 of 1974) - Sections 482 & 197 - [Indian] Penal Code, 1860 (Central Act 45 of 1860) - Sections 166, 167, 193, 342, 465 & 114 - Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949 (Bom. Act 25 of 1949) - Sections 65, 65(A)(E) & 116(B) - Bombay Police Act, 1951 (Bom. Act 22 of 1951) - Section 161(1) - Offences under Penal Code - Petitioner Police personal - Complaint against him filed beyond the period of limitation of one year - Maintainability - Even if the arguments advance on behalf on non-petitioner are accepted that in order to falsely implicate one S some false panchnamas were prepared and certain documents have been created at the instance of petitioner and other police officers, offences shall still fall within the purview of Section 161(1) of Bombay Police Act - The alleged wrong has been committed as petitioner were able to do so in the capacity of a police officer - In view of the scheme under Section 197 of Criminal Procedure Code a complaint ought to have been filed completing the formality within a period of one year - In the circumstance time limit cannot be stretched any further and complaint/prosecution touch after expiry of one year the time limit cannot be sustained - It is accordingly quashed and set aside.
Held :
So for the sake of argument, if it is accepted that Mr. Sudhir Gupta was falsely implicated and to implicate him some false panchnamas were prepared and certain documents, including the entries in Station Diary have been created at the instance of Mr. P.P. Asari and other police officials, it will not be possible for this Court to say that the offences are not falling within the purview of Section 161(1) of the Bombay Police Act. [Para 5.6]
It is very clear that there is no scope for contending that "acts done under the colour or in excess of duty or authority of such police officer. The alleged wrong has been committed as they were able to do the same in the capacity of a Police Officer. The very reading of the ingredients of the offence narrated in the complaint would show that such offences could not be committed without being in the cloak of a public servant; especially the Police Officer. The petitioner was at least under the colour of his office. Time and place of the incident are also found relevant. So the complaint at least must have been filed within one year from the date of commission of the offence. Even for the sake of prosecution, sanction was required in view of the scheme of Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, even then by completing that formality, a formal complaint ought to have been filed within a period of one year. The time limit specified by a special enactment cannot be stretched any further, irrespective of the other Sections punishable under the Indian Penal Code, the complaint/prosecution cannot sustain, if the same is filed after expiry of the prescribed time limit i.e., one year. [Para 6]
Law Laid Down :
Complaint for offences falling within purview of Section 161(1) of Bombay Police Act must be filed within the period of limitation of one year.
Cases Law Analysis :
Viruppaxappa Veerappa Kadampur vs. State of Mysore, AIR 1963 SC 849 [Para 2];; K.K. Patel & Ors. vs. State of Gujarat & Ors., 2000 (6) SCC 195 [Para 2].-Relied on
Decided in Favour of :
Petitioner
Petition Filed Allowed
( 1 ) HEARD Ms. S. Raju, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Mr. S. V. Raju and Mr. A. J. Desai, ld. APP, appearing on behalf of the respondent-State.
( 2 ) BY invoking jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioner has approached this Court for quashing the FIR/complaint being C. R. No. I-144 of 1997, registered with Dahod Police Town Station on 13th August, 1997, for the offences punishable under Sections 166, 167, 193, 342, 465 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code. The orig. complainant is one Mr. Manoj Agarwal, District Superintendent of Police (DSP), Panchmahalts District. The petitioner on the day of the complaint was serving with the State of Gujarat through Police Department and he was Deputy Superintendent of Police (Dy. S. P. ). Prior to his posting in the Panchmahals District, he has served in various parts of the State. It is submitted that the petitioner has been implicated in the crime in question though according to the petitioner, he is not involved in the alleged offence. In paras:3 to 7 of the petition, the petitioner has described the incident and other details leading to filing of the complaint in question by the Deputy Superintendent of Police. In the same way, the State of Gujarat has also described the details as to why the complaint in question has been filed and the application was filed for vacating the interim protection granted to the petitioner. For the sake of brevity and convenience, I would like to reproduce the facts stated by the respondent-State in the application in brief. The gist of the complaint is that the present petitioner is one of the prime accused, who has concocted story of involvement of one Sudhirkumar Gupta in the offence punishable under the Bombay Prohibition Act and got prepared the set of documents to justify the creation of false case against the said Sudhirkumar Gupta. The allegation against the present petitioner is that relations of one Motisinh Mali being cordial with the Police Department, this false case has been created and Sudhirkumar Gupta was compelled to vacate a rented premises. The cause of animosity between this Motisinh Mali and Sudhir Gupta is also indirectly emerging from record. But that detail being not relevant so far as present petition is concerned, the Court is not inclined to discuss the same in detail. As per the complainant, the said Motisinh Mali and the present petitioner having good relation, at the instance of Mr. Mali, the present petitioner created a false case against the said Sudhir Gupta for the offence punishable under Sections 65, 65 (A) (E) and 116 (B) of the Bombay Prohibition Act and the State mainly relied and, therefore, on the record prepared by the police officials an offence came to be registered vide Prohibition C. R. No. I-266 of 1997 including panchnama drawn on or about 6th May, 1997. Over and above assailing the story put forward before the prosecution in the complaint, on number of grounds mentioned in the memo of the petition, Ms. Raju, ld. counsel appearing for the petitioner, has mainly argued that in view of the scheme of Section 161 (1) of the Bombay Police Act, the case against the present petitioner is not sustainable being hopelessly time barred and no Court is competent to take cognizance on a time barred complaint. When the aforesaid matter was listed for hearing being Criminal Misc. Application No. 4067 of 1998, Ms. Raju has pointed out the details and has argued that in the present case the interim protection granted should not be vacated. In response thereof, Mr. Desai, ld. APP, had agreed that this petition can be heard on merit and the same can be disposed of without dealing with the application filed by the State in detail and without passing any formal orders because if the State succeeds, then automatically the interim relief becomes infructuous. So the Court has heard the arguments of the ld. counsel appearing for the parties in detail. While co
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
