ORDER
1. This writ petition has been filed by Ram Babu Singh challenging the F.I.R. giving rise to case Crime No. 240 of 1988 purported to be under Sections 218, 32 and 120B, I.P.C.
2. The prayer in the writ petition is that the said F.I.R. as well as further investigation therein may be quashed. It may be mentioned here that petitioner-Ram Babu Singh was an Inspector-in-charge of Police Station Lal Kurti, Meerut during the year 1985-86. During his tenure a case crime No. 491 of 1985, under Sections 152/295, I.P.C. was registered at the behest of Dr. V.B. Chauhan, Principal, Meerut College, Meerut. This was followed up by a supplementary F.I.R. of the same day. This case was investigaged by Rakesh Babu Yadav, Sub-Inspector working at the Police Station. It is stated in the writ petition that the informant Rajbir Singh and another resident of the locality namely Dhiraj Singh were interrogated at the police station relating to the said case crime. It has been further stated in the writ petition that Dhiraj Singh had been a complaint under Sections 323/452 and 342, I.P.C. which was dismissed on 10-3-1987 by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Meerut. The allegations in the said complaint were identical and parallel to the allegations made in the F.I.R. which is a subject-matter of the present writ petition.
3. When this writ petition was filed in this Court on 23-8-1991 a counter-affidavit was called. On 16-10-1992 an interim order was passed by a Division Bench staying arrest of the petitioner, if any, in the said case crime No. 240 of 1988.
4. Sri Virendra Singh Vashishtha has filed a detailed counter-affidavit indicating in para 13 thereof that investigations have been completed and he has recommended for permission to prosecute the petitioner in the Court of law for which sanction under Section 197, Cr. P.C. has been prayed. However, it is admitted that no sanction Under Section 107, Cr. P.C. has yet been accorded and the charge-sheet has not reached the Court. Another counter-affidavit has been filed by Pati Ram Dinkar but he has adopted the reply of Virendra Singh Vashishtha in his reply. Rejoinder affidavit have been filed. Sri H.K. Sharka, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri R.S. Sengar, learned Standing Counsel for the State have been heard at length for and against the writ petition. Since the affidavits have been exchanged, as prayed by learned counsel for the parties, the writ petition is being disposed of finally at the admission stage.
5. The short argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner emerges from the allegations made in the F.I.R. itself. Translated into English the entire allegations against the petitioner as is contained in para No. 3 of the F.I.R. would read as follows :--
'Para 3 :
In the night between 29th and 30th of October at about 11.45 p.m. when my father had gone out the Inspector-in-charge of P.S. Lal Kurti namely Ram Babu, Sub-Inspector K.S. Randhawa, Sub-Inspector Rakesh Babu, Sub-Inspector Yashpal Singh, Sub-Inspector Tewari and four constables came on Govt. Jeep to my house, forcibly entered the house and caught hold of me against my will and put me in the Jeep after dragging me. My mother, brother, sister and landlords' son Shammi, Lalit and their mother repeatedly requested them to leave me but instead they extended indecent behaviour and lodged me in the lock up of police station Lal Kurti saying that they had to teach me and my father a lesson. In the lock up apart from me Dhiraj Singh s/o Harbir Singh, Advocate, a student of Meerut University was also found confined.
6. In para No. 4 of the F.I.R. it has been stated that some of the police personnel such as Udaibir Singh, Jagbir Singh, Brij Bhushan Chaudhary, Gajendra Singh had Aziz Ahmad and some students leaders made enquiries from the petitioner Ram Babu Singh about the reason of the arrest of the informant Rajbir Singh to which Ram Babu Singh, petitioner replied that there are some such matters which cannot be said to all. It is further said in the same continuation that the informant was released in the same afternoon.
7. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner was that if an offence stood disclosed at the police station, the Station Officer is, by virtue of provisions contained in the Cr. P.C., authorised and empowered to arrest a person whom he considers to be prima facie involved in the non-cognizable offence. While replying to para 8 of the writ petition, it has not been denied in the counter-affidavit that the said F.I.R. stood validly lodged at the police station Lal Kurti by Sri V.B. Chauhan, Principal, Meerut College. In para 6 of the counter-affidavit of Vashishta it is admitted that the names of Dhiraj Singh and informant Rajbir Singh have been mentioned in the subsequent note submitted by the Private Secretary to the Principal and the said Secretary in his statement under Section 161 has specifically named these two as committing the offences. But Sri Vashishta says that the said note may not be termed as a supplementary Information Report. However, it stands consequently admitted in the counter-affidavit of Vashishta particularly in paras Nos. 8, 9 and 10 thereof that Rajbir Singh was in fact taken to the police station and released soon thereafter. The petitioner says that his complicity was not fully established at that stage for which Rajbir was released. Therefore, the arrest or taking the confinement the said informant Rajbir Singh for the purpose of interrogation was well within the official duty of the petitioner. Nothing has been shown to indicate that till that stage there was no basis to infer the complicity of Rajbir and that the arrest of Rajbir Singh was then accentuated by any ulterior motive, malice or illegal intentions.
8. Learned Standing Counsel relied upon the averments in the counter-affidavit and argued that the action of the informant may not be covered within the expression "in the discharge of his official duty." Reliance was further placed on the additional averment in the counter-affidavit that same other accused are about to be prosecuted as sanction against them under Section 197, Cr. P.C. has been accorded by the State Govt. While the matter of the petitioner is under consideration by it, and, since charge-sheet may be filed in Court if sanction is accorded, this Court may not interfere.
9. The purpose of Section 197, Cr. P.C. must be kept in view when dealing with such questions about arrest of an ostensible accused in a cognizable offence about which F.I.R. is lodged by a responsible person, namely the Principal of Meerut College. Even if the entire allegation in the F.I.R. is admitted, the informant remained in the police lock-up only for one or two hours. Nothing has been brought on record to show that the intention of the petitioner was wrong or malicious. Quite noticeably, no efforts were made by the petitioner to implicate the informant wrongly or get some further evidence collected during the investigation to indicate his complicity even by other methods. Moreover, as is admitted, Rajbir was released within about two hours. It thus appears that on corning to know that the informant Rajbir Singh may not have been an accused in that case, immediate steps were taken by the petitioner to release him. All this indicate beyond all doubt that the action of the petitioner in arresting the informant was in exercise of the official duty of the petitioner and the ingredients of Sections 218, 342 and 323, I.P.C. are not made out from whatever is stated in the F.I.R. Consequently, Rajbir Singh's F.I.R. need not be investigated any further as no offence stands disclosed. Thus, this is a fit case where the extraordinary power of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashing the F.I.R. must be exercised keeping in view the guidelines set out by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Swapan Kumar's case, AIR 1982 SC 949 : (1982 Cri LJ 819).
10. The result of the aforesaid discussion is that this writ petition is allowed and the F.I.R. dated 2-11-1985 lodged at the police station Lal Kurti on 10-8-1988 as case crime No. 240 of 1988, under Sections 218, 342 and 120B, I.P.C., and all further investigation and proceedings therein are hereby quashed. The parties will bear their costs.