Meghalaya High Court: In a criminal petition by former Director General of Police, Meghalaya under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (‘CrPC’) for setting aside and quashing of the First Information Report (‘FIR’) registered under Section 409/467/471/120-B of the Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’) read with Section 192 Motor Vehicle Act, 19881 (MV Act’), the Single Judge Bench of B. Bhattacharjee, J., allowed the petition and quashed the impugned FIR and chargesheet.
Factual Matrix
It was alleged that the petitioner misused and tampered the registration number of the vehicle in the use of the petitioner in the capacity of the Director General of Police, Meghalaya. The FIR also alleged the commission of the offence of criminal conspiracy and criminal breach of trust as well as forgery and cheating committed by the petitioner. During the pendency of this criminal petition, upon completion of the investigation, a chargesheet under Section 192 MV Act was submitted by the Investigating Authority in the matter.
The counsel for the petitioner-DGP submitted that Section 192 of the MV Act is a non-compoundable offence and the police are not authorised to investigate and seek trial against the petitioner based on the chargesheet submitted in the case.
Decision
The Court said that it was clear that though the FIR was registered under Section 409/467/471/120B of the IPC read with Section 192 of MV Act, no offence under Section 409/467/471/120B IPC was alleged against the petitioner in the chargesheet.
The Court noted that upon his joining as the DGP, Meghalaya, he intended to use the vehicle in question which was requisitioned from Assam. Accordingly, the Government of Meghalaya, Transport Department accorded and conveyed its approval for the usage of the said vehicle on 01-08-2023 at a rate of Rs.1310/- per day and night haltage of Rs.200/- per night with the condition that the officer shall use the said Assam registered vehicle under Meghalaya registration and not any “ML-02” registered vehicle. However, the Court said that there was nothing on record to show that any specific Meghalaya registration number was allotted to the said vehicle.
Regarding the allegations made in the chargesheet the said vehicle was used with registration number “ML-02” which was allotted to a different vehicle of the police department, the Court said that there was nothing on record to show that the said registration number was used on the instruction given by the DGP.
Therefore, the Court held that no charge was made out against the DGP since the acts alleged in the chargesheet did not fall and satisfy the ingredients of Section 192 of the MV Act.
The Court said that Section 192 of the MV Act is non-cognizable, and the investigation in the FIR was not conducted on the basis of an order passed by the Magistrate, the police officer concerned could not have submitted the case for trial. During the course of the investigation of the matter, when it transpired that the offence involved was non-cognizable, the investigating authority must have obtained permission from the Magistrate concerned to investigate the offence. In the absence of any such permission, the chargesheet submitted cannot be rendered valid in terms of the provision of Section 155 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 which lays down that no police officer shall investigate a non-cognizable case without the order of a Magistrate having power to try such case or commit the case for trial.
[Lajja Ram Bishnoi v. State of Meghalaya, Criminal Petition No. 31 of 2024, decided on: 18-02-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the Petitioner: Mr. A. Goyal, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. N.D. Chullai, AAG with Mr. E. R. Chyne, GA, Mr. W.G.R. Mishill, Adv.
Buy Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 HERE
Buy Penal Code, 1860 HERE
