Back
2016 Supreme(All) 1079
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
(Lucknow Bench)
BEFORE : AJAI LAMBA AND RAVINDRA NATH MISHRA-II, JJ.
Smt. NISHA KHATOON .....Petitioner
Versus
STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS .....Respondent
(Writ Petition No. 9503 (M/B) of 2016, decided on 11th August, 2016)
Counsel :
Dharmendra Kumar for the Petitioner; G.A. for the Respondent.
Headnote:(A) (Indian) Penal Code, 1860—Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 323, 504, 506, 120-B—FIR—Quashing for—Allegation of forging Will and changing address in connivance with her husband—Charge-sheet has already been filed against co accused, husband of the petitioner—In the charge-sheet petitioner has not been depicted as absconding accused or that investigation in her regard is pending—It is only subsequently in abuse of authority vested in the investigating officer that the petitioner was proceeded against—Ingredients of committing offence are not satisfied, as against the petitioner—Petitioner had no role to play in changing the address as alleged—Being wife she was required to reflect the same address as that of her husband—Hence petitioner has not committed offence of cheating under Section 415, I.P.C. r/w Section 420, I.P.C.—Further it is not even the case of the prosecution that the petitioner indulged in forgery of any document—FIR quashed. [Paras 4, 11, 12, 13, 14 and 17]
(B) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973—Section 173—U.P. Police Regulations, 1991—Regulation 122 Form 339—Misleading Charge-sheet—Charge-sheet filed—In the column of absconding accused none is shown—In the narration of facts in the charge-sheet it is not mentioned that investigation against a particular accused is pending—Subsequently on the whims of the police officials proceedings are initiated against certain persons—Who are aliens to the charge-sheet—Lame excuse is given by the police officials—that on account of ‘human error’, relevant column in the charge-sheet vis-a-vis the absconding accused was not filled—Such lapses held misconduct on the part of, not only the investigating officer, but also the Circle Officer who has approved the charge-sheet—Direction issued. [Paras 17, 18, 19 and 25]
Result; Order Accordingly.
Hon’ble Ravindra Nath Mishra-II, J.—This petition seeks issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari quashing F.I.R./Crime No. 189 of 2015, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 323, 504, 506, 120-B I.P.C., Police Station Mahanagar, District Lucknow.
2. Gist of the issue raised by the petitioner is recorded in order dated 3.5.2016. The order reads as under :
“1. This petition seeks issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing F.I.R./Crime No. 189 of 2015, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 323, 504, 506, 120-B I.P.C., Police Station Mahanagar, District Lucknow.
2. The impugned F.I.R. has been read in extenso in Court. Gist of the allegation is that the petitioner alongwith co accused, enabled forgery of a Will dated 6.1.2002 and benefit of that Will has been taken.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has pointed out that the charge-sheet has already been filed against co accused Mahmood Ali, husband of the petitioner. The petitioner is sought to be arrested. In the charge-sheet, however, the petitioner has not been depicted as absconding accused or that investigation in her regard is pending.
4. Issue notice to serve respondent No. 4 returnable on 11.7.2016.
5. List this case on 11.7.2016.
6. Arrest of the petitioner shall remain stayed till the next date of listing. Petitioner is directed to join investigation.
7. Investigating officer is directed to file his affidavit as to under what circumstances, the petitioner is being approached, although, investigation has been concluded and the petitioner has not been shown as absconding accused.
8. We are issuing notice only on the limited issue that the petitioner has not been shown as an absconding accused in the charge-sheet, yet is sought to be arrested.”
3. Charge-sheet bearing No. 02 of 2016 dated 14.2.2016 is available on record. As per the charge-sheet the only accused shown in the relevant column is Mehboob Ali. The column of absconding accused is vacant, thereby indicating that there is no other accused to be arrested or against whom investigation is pending. The gist of the investigation indicated on the front page of the charge-sheet also does not mention the petitioner as one of the accused.
4. After the above extracted order was passed, it appears that another charge-sheet has been prepared bearing No. 02A of 2016 dated 10.6.2016 in which the petitioner has been shown as the accused.
5. Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is explicit and details the information to be supplied to the Court in regard to the investigation conducted and concluded. Various columns of the Charge-sheet are provided in Form 339 provided under Regulation 122 of the U.P. Police Regulations. Form 339 appears to have been provided in context of provisions of Section 173 Cr.P.C.
6. The relevance of a charge-sheet and the information disclosed in the charge-sheet, for the accused, the victim/complainant as also the Court has been noticed in judgment dated 21.08.2015 rendered by this Court in Writ Petition No. 7590 (MB) of 2015: Madhuri Devi v. State of U.P. and others. The following has been held in this context:-
“ 51. It needs to be mentioned that after completing investigation, the police officer is required to make a clear report in terms of provisions of S. 173 CrPC. The information required to be provided under sub Section (2) of S.173 CrPC should be specific in its content, with relevant basis for its conclusion.
xxxxx
55. At the point in time when report under S.173 CrPC is prepared, the investigation is concluded. The investigating officer has collected sufficient evidence indicating commission of offence (S.170 CrPC). The investigating agency knows what evidence has been collected indicating culpability of particular accused, and what offence has been committed by that accused. The report must categorise the offence committed by a particular accused, and the basis for so concluding. The supporting evidence , viz. statements of the witnesses recorded under S. 16
