LexJEHAN SINGH versus DELHI ADMINISTRATION
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
7 94
JEHAN SINGH
v.
DELHI ADMINISTRATION
March 27, 1974
[M. H. BEG AND R. S. SARKARIA, JJ .]
Code of Crinzi11al Procedure, 1898, Sec. 561-A-lnherent powers of the H;gli
Court-Interference with i111·estigation by tile Po/ice-F.J.R. pri111a facie dis·
closes cognizable offence.
A bus belonging to one Indraj and Sukhlal was in the/ossession of Munshi
Ram, the driver, and other servants. The bus was remove from the custody of
the said servants by the appellant and one Mr. Pathak. Munshi Ram filed F.I.R.
disclosing these facts.
Jn pursuance of the information the Police started
investigaiton, arrested Jehan Singh, the appellant, and Pathak who were later
on released on bail.
The bus was seized by the Police.
The proceeding in
regard to Pathak was quashed by the High Court but not in respect of the
appellant.
The appellant contended before this Court that the F.I.R. did not
disclose any offence and therefore, the investigation by PoliCe should be quashed.
Disn1issing the appeal,
HELD :-(I) That the decision of the Privy Council in Kliwaza Nudr
Aluned':r case and the decision of the Supreme Court jn S. N. Basok's ca5e have
settled lhe Jaw in regar~i to the High Court's power of interference at
th~
interlocutory stage. The statutory power of the pol.ice 'o investigate the cogniz·
able offences cannot be interferred with in exercise of the inherent power of
the Court u/s 561-A of the Cri1ninal Procedure Code.
Jn lhe present case.
no charge-sheet· or complaint had been filed in the Court and the matter
\Vas
o;lill at the stage- of investigation by the Police. {796]
(II) Held further, that the first information report pri111a facie discloses the
commission of a cognizable offence by the
appeJlant and his
companions.
Applying the decision of the Court in R. P. Kaiur's case held, the High Court
was right in not interfering with the police investigation. The interference is
justified only if the F .LR. does not disclose any offence. In exercise
of
it~
jurisdiction u/s. 561-A, the High Court cannot embark upon an enquiry as to
whether evidence in a given case is reliable or not.
(79R A-797 D]
King E111peror v. K/iu•aja Nazir Alin1ed, 71 l.A. at 213, followed.
State of We</ Bengal v. S. N. Hasak [1963] 2 S.C.R. 54, applied.
R. P. Knp11r v. State of P1111it1b, [1960] 3 S.C.R. 388, re1ied on.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 201
of 1970.
A
B
c
D
E
F
Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated the
3rd February, 1970 of the Delhi High Court in Crl. Mis. (M) No. 93
G
of 1969.
S. M. A 11a11d, for the Appellant.
S. N.-Prasad and R. N. Sachthey for Respondent No. I.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
SARKARIA, J.-This appeal by special !~ave. is directed a~ain~t .an
order of a learned single Judge of the Delhi High Court, . d!sm1ssmg
appellant's petition made under s. 561-A of the Code of Cnmmal Pro-
cedure.
The material facts are these :
H
(
'l
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
JEHAN SINGH v. DELHI ADMN. (Sarkaria, /.)
79 5
On June 15, 1969, a report was lodged in Police Station, Tilak
Mark, New Delhi, by one Munshi Ram alleging that he was employed
as a Driver of bus, DLP 3867, belonging to Jndraj Singh and Su1<h Lal
of Chirag Delhi.
On June 13, 1969 at 6 p.m., he stopped the bus at
Mathura Road to talk to one Devi Singh son of Ganesh Lal.
Devi
Singh invited the informant and his companions, Mahinder Singh Con-
ductor and Sher Singh helper, to soft-drinks at a nearby shop.
Leavmg
the bus unattended, they proceeded to that shop.
In the meantime,
Jehan Singh appellant, Sharma, R. K. Pathak and another man of
'stout-build' got into the vehicle.
The stout man took the steering
wheel, and all the four drove away in the bus despite the protests of the
informant and his companions.
Munshi Ram then went to Chirag
Delhi to inform his employer Indraj Singh, but found the latter absent.
It was also mentioned in the report that Pathak and Sharma were em-
ployed in Scindia House.
The police started investigation and arrested Jehan Singh appellant,
and R. K. Pathak, Assistant Manager of the Industrial Credit Co. Ltd.,
Scindia House (hereinafter called the Company).
They were later
released on bail.
The bus was also seized by the police from the pos-
session of the Company.
Pathak and the appellant filed two separate petitions under s. 561-
A, Cr. Procedure Code challenging the police proceedings in pursuance
of the First InformExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.