'Gross Misuse Of Powers By Police': MP High Court Quashes FIR In Fake Motor Accident Case, Directs DGP To Conduct Inquiry Against Officers

In doing so, the Court also directed the Director General of Police to inquire whether the activities of various police officials in the matter lead to any criminal offence or misconduct on their part and to proceed accordingly.

Justice Vivek Jain in his order observed, “In the present case, it is a case of there being no legal evidence against the present petitioner to continue with the impugned charge sheet. On the other hand, it is a case of gross misuse of powers by the police, which is nothing but a grossly oppressive action by the police authority in the present case, which has had the effect of putting the petitioners to give prejudice by involving them into a non-existent case having no legal evidence.”

Background

A petition was filed by two brothers praying to constitute a Special Investigation Team or to pass an order to some high power special agency to investigate into the manipulations made in the FIR against Roopansh Khatri for offences under Section 279 (Rash driving or riding on a public way) and 337 (Causing hurt by act endangering life or personal safety of others) of IPC. It is alleged that the FIR and consequential investigation only facilitates claim of compensation by the complainant in connivance with the police officials i.e. respondents No. 3 and 4.

The counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners belong to an affluent family and own good property in Jabalpur. It was stated that a racket is going on in the city to implicate persons having good financial means and having vehicles of their ownership, in false motor accident claims case only so as to extract compensation either from the vehicle owners or from the insurance company.

The counsel submitted that the petitioners have become the victims of this racket going on between the claimants and police officials to lodge false FIRs, conduct biased investigation and implicate vehicles in non-existent road traffic accidents. It was stated that vehicle of the petitioner No. 2 got involved and they have been falsely implicated in the case. It was contended that the entire FIR was based on concocted story of an accident taking place.

Findings

As per the FIR, an incident took place where the motorcycle driver by the complainant dashed with motor cycle driven by the petitioner No. 1 and owned by the petitioner No. 2. Three months later a Dehati Nalish (an informal complaint made before FIR) was registered.

To justify the late registration of FIR, the respondents stated that the spot of the accident was such that there was confusion amongst three Police Stations regarding jurisdiction and the complainant was being made to wander from here to there. The complainant then reached out to the Superintendent of Police and thereafter, FIR was registered.

“It is really surprising that the S.P. sent him to Police Station Gohalpur. Gohalpur is not one of three police stations among which there was confusion, because undisputedly looking to geography of Jabalpur city Gohalpur is in a totally different place and there could have been no confusion that the place of accident would fall in Gohalpur Police Station. It is surprising to note that the Superintendent of Police Jabalpur did not know that under which police station area spot of accident falls and if he was under any confusion then he could have directed any Additional Superintendent of Police or Deputy Superintendent of Police under him to enquire and fix the jurisdiction of spot of accident… then it is evident that there cannot any better example of a totally negligent, careless and incompetent officer holding the post of Superintendent of Police, Jabalpur.”, the Court said.

Fabricated letters

The Court noted that letter written by complainant to the SP did not bear the signature of the Superintendent of Police or any other police official.

It was further noted that a new letter was created by Police Station Ghamapur forwarding complaint to Police Station Ranjhi so as to fill up the gap that when the SP had directed Police Station Gohalpur to look into the matter.

“This letter of Police Station Ghamapur is a totally new thing and it is something totally alien to the entire controversy, because it is neither out of the three police stations among which confusion was there, nor the police station to which the complainant is stated to have been sent by the S.P. It is a fifth police station jumping in the fray and seems that this letter is having concocted letter number and date of some non-existent letter S.P. Office Jabalpur, these particulars in the “Sandarbh” (reference) contained in this letter seems to have been fabricated only to fill the missing link that how the complaint of the complainant went to Police Station Ranjhi and to fill up the gap up to 19.06.2017.”, the Court observed.

The Court further observed, “…not a single letter or documentation of Police Station Gohalpur is on record. How the complaint came in Police Station Ghamapur is suspicious and only gives to conclusion that since the then SHO of Police Station Ghamapur was agreeable to sign on this letter containing fabricated letter number and date of some non-existent letter of 19 S.P. Office, Jabalpur, that the letter dated 01.06.2017 of Police Station Ghamapur was got signed and inserted in the case diary.”

No case diary statements of Medical Practitioners

With regard to the X-ray report of the complainant, the Court noted that it was only a prescription signed by a doctor who is not a radiologist and no money receipt for consultation or X-ray was attached with it.

“It is really fishy that once the cover page of X-ray report mentions the name of Radiologist, then no actual X-ray report prepared by that person is on record, but only prescription of an orthopaedic doctor is on record, which mentions five weeks old doubtful fracture of right scaphoid and nothing else.”, the Court observed.

The Court further said, “It is really curious to note that even no case diary statements of Dr. Shirish Naik or Dr. Gopala Pole have been recorded…how the police authorities have come to conclusion and charge sheeted the accused under Section 338 IPC is really fishy and speaks volumes about the bad intention of the police authorities in the matter. It is evident to this Court that police authorities any how wanted a FIR under cognizable offences to be lodged and charge-sheet to be presented so that some police record of some accident can be created to facilitate motor accident claim case and that was all which was intended by the police authorities.”

Notice under Sec. 133 of Motor Vehicle Act

With regard to respondent's contention that petitioner No. 2 admitted the involvement of vehicle and guilt of his brother - petitioner No. 1 by writing a letter, the Court noted that the said letter was in response to a notice under Section 133 of Motor Vehicle Act (Duty of owner of motor vehicle to give information) issued by the Police Station.

“It is evident to this Court that the Station House Officer grossly abused his powers and misused the provisions of Section 133 Motor Vehicle Act and physically called the vehicle owner and driver to the police station. Thus, this notice is not a notice under Section 133 Motor Vehicle Act, but is a pressure tactics to pressurize the vehicle owner and if under such pressure tactics the vehicle owner has written the letter while sitting in the police station, then it cannot be said to be admission of guilt of driver.”, the Court observed.

The Court further observed that a confession made by owner of the vehicle, admitting guilt of the Driver after the police abused the powers under Section 133 by applying pressure tactics, cannot be said to be disclosure of the accused under Section 27 of the Evidence Act (How much of information received from accused may be proved) since no further discovery of any fact took place.

The FIR against Roopansh Khatri was hence, quashed.

Case Title: Roopansh Khatri And Others Versus The State Of Madhya Pradesh And Others, Writ Petition No. 127 Of 2018

Counsel for Petitioner: Senior Advocate Ashok Lalwani and Advocate Abhishek Singh

Counsel for Respondent No. 1 & 2: Government Advocate Lokesh Singh

Counsel for Respondent No. 3 to 5: Senior Advocate Prakash Upadhyay and Advocate Jalaj Dwivedi

Counsel for Respondent No. 6: Advocate Gulab Chand Sohane