9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (3) TMI 73X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by proper authorisation in terms of their Departmental Circular dated 18-12-1992, entered R-4's factory premises and disclosed their identity by showing their identity cards but R-4 barged in and shouted at them and threatened to shoot them. He refused to listen to them and instead made telephone calls to some police officials and other persons. Later police arrived on the scene, checked their identity cards, took them to Jahangir Puri Police Station and detained them there from 3 PM to 6 PM. At this stage, they made a written complaint to R-3 alleging obstruction in the discharge of their duty by R-4 upon which their statements were recorded and they were released and assured that action would be taken in the matter. But next day, they fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to them which did not carry any official stamp. Later petitioner No. 1 submitted a complaint alleging obstruction in the discharge of official duty in which a preliminary inquiry was conducted and it was found to be an after-thought. Hence, no case was registered on this. 4.By Court order dated 21-11-2001, DCP (NW) was asked to conduct an inquiry into the matter. He has stated in his report that petitioners had followed an improper procedure for raiding R-4's factory premises. They had neither shown their identity cards nor any authorisation letter from Assistant Collector which was later submitted in the police station on a plain paper and which was an after-thought. It is further held by him that even if factory owner was suspected of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s only after the registration of FIR and commencement of investigation that he had options to satisfy himself whether he suspected commission of an offence and whether there was a ground for entering into investigation in the facts and circumstances of the case. Therefore, going by the scheme and spirit of provisions of Chapter XII and other relevant provisions, a police officer was obliged to enter the information in prescribed form and to register a case notwithstanding the reasonableness or authenticity or credibility of such information. It was then open to him either to proceed with the investigation or to dispense with it depending upon the facts and circumstances of the case. 7.Though all this is well-established, it would still be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... emises of R-4 for any suspected tax evasion. Even if it was assumed that they did not possess any letter of authorisation from Assistant Collector, it could not dislodge the basis of their complaint alleging obstruction in the discharge of their duty. Nor was it for R-3 to make it a condition precedent for registration of a case. For him, it was a simple case of two rival complaints, one made by petitioners and the other by R-4 and he was required under Section 154(1) to enter the substance of these complaints in the prescribed form and to register a case. It is surprising that he should have done it in one case and refused to do it in the other. 10.What is worse is that DCP (NW) had compounded the mistake by assuming the role of a Court ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
