G. B. Singh, J.- - (1.) THIS is a petition for issuing a writ in the nature of Certiorari quashing the preliminary enquiry report submitted by the Circle Officer Lalganj and the First Information Report of Crime No. 60 of 1988 Police Station Sairaini district Rae Bareli and the investigation done in pursuance of that First Information Report and issuing a writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the opposite parties not to arrest the petitioners in connection with the aforesaid case.
(2.) A dacoity was committed at the house of one Hari Shanker at village Balampur Police Station Sairaini district Rae Bareli on the night between 29/30-11-1987. The first Information Report was lodged about it by Hari Shanker on 30-11-1987 at the aforesaid Police Station. The case was that 10 or 12 dacoits committed dacoity and they looted cash and ornaments worth Rs. 70,000,/-. Suresh Chandra Sen S. O. Police Station Sairaini who is petitioner no. 1 investigated the case. S. I. Krishna Dev Singh petitioner no. 2 was assisting him in that investigation. S. O. Suresh Chandra Sen arrested two suspects of that case namely Ganga Sagar and Ram Sanehi on 7-12-1987 and recovered some looted property. Ganga Sagar disclosed names of other dacoits who participated in the aforesaid dacoity. On 26-12-1987 some other suspects were also arrested and looted property was recovered from their possession. According to the petitioners one Ram Kishore was one of those suspects who were arrested on 26-12-1987. One Surest Dixit resident of Sairaini District Rae Bareli who is an influential person tried to get Ram Kishore released but failed. C. O., R. B. Singh of Lalganj Circle District Rae Bareli who lodged the First Information Report also made an attempt to get Ram Kishore released but did not succeed. Both Suresh Dixit and C. O., R. B. Singh expressed their anger when they failed to get Ram Kishore released. Suresh Chandra Dixit and others made false complaint to D.I.G. of Lucknow Range against the petitioners. A wireless message Annexure no. 2 was, therefore, sent by the D.I.G. to the Superintendent of Police for enquiry into the matter. This enquiry was entrusted to C. O., R. B. Singh who submitted incorrect report Annexure no. 3 against the petitioners mentioning therein that the petitioners and one S. I., Prem Shanker Shukla committed offences under sections 384/218/161 IPC and 5 (2) Prevention of Corruption Act. Against this report S. O., Suresh Chandra Sen made an application to the Superintendent Police Annexure no. 5 that the enquiry may be given to some senior officer whereupon Additional S. P. was asked to conduct further enquiries and to check up the report of the Circle Officer. After this, Additional S. P. sent two notices to S. O., Suresh Chandra Sen petitioner no. 1 but he did not appear before him to disclose what material is in his favour and which of the witnesses should be examined, in support of his contention. Additional S. P. did not find any material to disagree with the Circle Officer and he, therefore, confirmed it on 11-4-1988. His report is Annexure no. 6. After this C. O., R. B. Singh lodged First Information Report against the two petitioners and S. I., Prem Shanker Shukla on 21-4-1988 Annexure no. 1 at Police Station Sairaini. According to the First Information Report S. O., Suresh Chandra Sen arrested one suspect Gur Shanker on 26-12-1987 who confessed his guilt and disclosed that looted ornaments have been sold by him and another dacoit Prem Kumar to one Sheo Narain Sonar resident of Deviganj Police Station Kotwali Fatehpur for a sum of Rs. 33,330/- and this amount was distributed among the dacoits. S. O., Suresh Chandra Sen arrested Gur Shanker Tewari, Ram Kishore Pandit and Bhagwati on 26-12-1987 and brought them to Police Station Sairaini. They were seen at Police Station Sairaini by the informant Sheo Narain Sonar was also present on that date at Police Station Sairaini. Sheo Narain Sonar disclosed that he sold those ornaments at Kanpur whereupon S. O., Suresh Chandra Sen was directed to go to Kanpur to recover the looted articles. In Case Diary S. O., Suresh Chandra Sen noted that he went to Fetehpur on 29- 12-1987 interrogated Sheo Narain sonar there and took search of his shop The entries made in his log Book of the Government keep No. USU 1373 on which S. O. Suresh Chandra Sen and his party went to Fatehpur do not tally with the entries in the case diary about the places visited by him. It is further alleged in the First Information Report that on 29-12- 1987 S. O, Suresh Chandra Sen did not go to Fatehpur but went to Kanpur along with S. I. Krishna Dev Singh petitioner no. 2, some other police officers and Sheo Narain Sonar. The informant interrogated more than 18 or 20 persons of Fatehpur and Kanpur. On their interrogation he came to know that S O. Suresh Chandra Sen and S. I. Krishna Dev Singh took S. I. Prem Shanker Shukla of Police Station Collectorganj Kanpur along with them on 29-12-1987 and went to the shop of Firm Surya Kumar Vidya Sagar, Nayaganj, Kanpur along with Sheo Narain Sonar. On pointing out of Sheo Narain Sonar Arvind Kumar and Yogendra Kumar who were present at the shop of the Firm were interrogated. The two petitioners and S. I. Prem Shanker Shukla threatened to take them to the Police Station and extorted a sum of Rs. 20,000/- in cash and ornaments worth Rs. 5000/- looted in the aforesaid dacoity from them. The petitioners and S. I. Prem Shanker Shukla concealed taking search of the shop of the Firm, interrogation of the aforesaid persons and receipt of the aforesaid cash and looted ornaments. They in its place mentioned in the case diary that the petitioners had gone to Fatehpur. The petitioners and S. I. Prem Shanker Shukla, therefore, made incorrect entries about the arrest and recovery of the looted articles in the Case Diary and took a sum of Rs. 20000/- and ornaments worth Rs. 5000/- from Arvind Kumar and Yogendra Kumar by extortion and in order to save the partners of the Firm Surya Kumar Vidya Sagar, false records were prepared and illegal gratification was taken. On 30-12-1987 illegal gratification was accepted by them from Sheo Narain Sonar at Police Station Sairaini and they did not take any action against him.
(3.) ON the basis of this First Information Report a case under sections 384/218/161 IPC and 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act has been registered against the petitioners and S. I. Prem Shanker Shukla of Police Station Collectorganj Kanpur. From the allegations made in paragraph 29 of the writ petition it appears that Circle Officer Sanjay Srivastava of Circle Salon District Rae Bareli is investigating the case. The petitioners apprehending their arrest during investigation filed the present writ petition. It was firstly argued by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the First Information Report does not disclose any offence and the investigation commenced on its basis should, therefore, be quashed. We do not find any force in this contention. According to the First Information Report the petitioners committed offences under sections 384/218/161 IPC and 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Section 384 IPC deals with extortion. It has been defined under Section 383 IPC and made punishable under section 384 IPC. It shows that when one intentionally puts other person in fear of any injury to that person or to any other and thereby dishonestly induces the person so put in fear to deliver to any person any property or valuable security, commits extortion. In the present case it is alleged that the petitioner threatened Arvind Kumar and Yogendra Kumar to take them to Police Station and thereby took Rs. 20000/- in cash and ornaments worth Rs. 5000/- from them. The petitioners did not disclose all this in the Case Diary but made an attempt to conceal all this. It can, therefore, be inferred that the petitioners dishonestly induced Arvind Kumar and Yogendra Kumar to deliver them the aforesaid cash and ornaments. The injury need not be physical. Even a threat of involving a person in a criminal charge whether true or false amounts to a fear of injury. Thus, the necessary facts constituting ingredients of offence of extortion punishable under section 384 IPC are given in the First Information Report. It is also mentioned in the First Information Report that the petitioners framed incorrect Case Diary omitting recovery from Sheo Narain Sonar and Arvind Kumar and Yogendra Kumar. Section 218 IPC shows that where a public servant charged with the preparation of any record frames that record in a manner which he knows to be incorrect with intent to save any person from legal punishment or to cause loss or injury to the public or to any person is punishable under it. The petitioners were public servants. There is clear allegation that they made incorrect entries in the Case Diary with intent to save the aforesaid three persons from legal punishment and to cause loss or injury to the person from whose house the said ornaments were looted. Thus, necessary facts constituting the offence under Section 218 IPC are also given in the first information report. There is clear allegation in the First Information Report that the petitioners being public servants took illegal gratification from the aforesaid persons in respect of their official acts. It is also indicated therein that this was done to favour the aforesaid three persons. Such a case clearly falls within the purview of Section 161 IPC and 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. It cannot, therefore, be said that the First Information Report does not disclose a cognizable offence.;