Allowing aggrieved people to hold police machinery to ransom would affect the morale and functioning of the machinery, said the Bombay High Court recently while quashing an FIR filed against three police officers.The court said that the magistrate court, which ordered for the FIR, could not act as a “post office” and transmit everyapplication for investigation.
“Allowing the aggrieved or disgruntled persons to hold the police machinery at ransom by unjustifiable vexatious persecution will affect the morale and effective functioning of the police machinery. This in turn will have serious and far-reaching adverse impact on the interest of the society,” the court said while offering the relief.
The FIR was registered against Pandharinath Patil, Sunil Darekar and Sanjay Lokhande of the Khargahar police station after a magistrate court in Panvel passed an order on December 2, 2014.
The magistrate court had acted on an applicationfiled by a lawyer and journalist Vinod Gangwal, who alleged that the three police officers abducted and falsely implicated him and his friend in a case by taking undue advantage of their powers. Gangwal also claimed that the trio was ‘involved in several crimes’. He alleged that the officers did not submitthe FIR in the magistrate court on time and altered the FIR’s submission date.
Gangwal said that the police officers had refused to record the complaint lodged by the mother of a rape victim and had further threatened her not to lodge a complaint. The mother of the rape victim was being questioned by male officers instead of a woman, he said.
Justices Ranjit More and Anuja Prabhudessai, however, observed that Gangwal, who was well versed with legal provisions, had invoked the judicial provision in the ‘most casual manner’.
The judges, after going through the magistrate court’s order, felt that it clearly revealed that the magistrate did not “make any endeavour” to ascertain whether theapplication disclosed any cognisable offence. On the contrary, the HC said the magistrate ordered investigation only because the complainant has alleged about the cognisable offence against the police officers.
“Suffice to state that in exercising powers conferred under Section 156 (3) Code of Criminal Procedure (power to magistrate to order probe), the court cannot act as apost office and transmit every application for investigation,” the court said.
“A situation like this therefore demands more cautious and serious judicial scrutiny ofall relevant materials and meticulous application of mind to the entire facts and circumstances of the case to ascertain whether facts disclosed constitute cognisable offence,” the High Court said while quashing the FIR.
No comments:
Post a Comment