PRATAPBHAI PUNJABHAI ASARI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(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 concentrating her arguments, Ms.Raju has placed reliance on the decision in the case of Viruppaxappa Veerappa Kadampur v. State of Mysore, reported in AIR 1963 SC 849; and the subsequent decision in the case of K.K.Patel and others v. State of Gujarat and others, reported in 2000(6) SCC 195.

(3.) Obviously, both the decisions are in reference to the police officials and the allegation against Mr.K.K. Patel in the cited decision of K.K. Patel (supra), was just similar to the allegations which are made against the present petitioner. The allegation against Mr.K.K. Patel in the cited decision was that he had committed offence punishable under Sections 166, 167, 176, 201, 219, 220, 342 and 417 of the Indian Penal Code. Referring to the relevant para from both the decisions, Ms.Raju has argued that the time limit of initiation of proceedings, if any, is prescribed in Section 161(1) of the Bombay Police Act. Undisputedly, the alleged acts that were done by the petitioner were in the capacity of a police officer and while performing his duty in the relevant area. Ms.Raju has further argued that the such prosecution could have been initiated in the prescribed time limit i.e. within a period of one year from the date of alleged prosecution. She has also stated that the complainant was very well aware about all the details at least prior to 24th or 25th July, 1996, because the D.S.P., Panchmahals at Godhra, had sent a detailed report to his superior vide letter No.GNR/RB/170/96 dated 26th July, 1996, which was addressed to Special Inspector General, Vadodara Range, Vadodara, wherein he has also expressed a positive opinion that the present petitioner is the person responsible in creating a false case against Mr.Sudhir Gupta. How false documents have been created is also shown in the conclusive part of the report. Even then, the complaint against the accused for the reasons best known to the complainant has been filed on 13th August, 1997 i.e. after more than one year from the date of discharge of the report to the higher officer. I would like to refer to the relevant part from the decision of K.K. Patel (supra), referred by Ms.Raju, at the time of hearing of this petition, which is as under :