E-Paper
Inquire why cop took a year to file report in trivial matter: Bombay HC to police chief
Bombay high court (HC) directed the Mumbai Police commissioner to initiate an inquiry against an investigating officer (IO) who took over a year to file a report in a trivial matter, wherein an offence of rash riding was registered against a 27-year-old man from Kurla along with 13 others in 2014
Bombay high court (HC) directed the Mumbai Police commissioner to initiate an inquiry against an investigating officer (IO) who took over a year to file a report in a trivial matter, wherein an offence of rash riding was registered against a 27-year-old man from Kurla along with 13 others in 2014.
The man, an engineer, had sought quashing of the criminal proceedings based on the delay by the IO, as he was unable to apply for a passport and work abroad due to the criminal case against him. The HC, while directing the inquiry against the IO, quashed the criminal proceedings against the accused.
The division bench of justice SS Shinde and justice Manish Pitale, while hearing the petition of the engineer, was informed by advocate Shravan Giri that at the time of the incident, his client was an engineering student.
After securing his degree, the man got a job in a reputed organisation and was also offered a promotion that enabled him to work in Oman. However, due to pendency of criminal proceedings, the man could not apply for a passport, and hence lost the said opportunity, Giri submitted.
The petition stated that as the employer has kept the offer open, the man approached HC and sought that the criminal proceedings and the order of cognisance of offence taken by the magistrate be quashed and set aside on the grounds that the stipulated time for initiating such proceedings had lapsed as per law.
Seven years ago, on March 3, a constable from Bandra police station had lodged a first information report (FIR) against the petitioner and 13 others for offences punishable under sections 279 (rash driving or riding) and 336 (endangering life or personal safety of others) of the Indian Penal Code. The accused were apprehended for riding motorcycles in rash and negligent manner at high speed.
Giri submitted that the case was still pending and even a roznama (register of proceedings) had not been properly maintained by the magistrate court. He added that as the sentences prescribed under the offences were of six and three months, and the magistrate took cognisance of them in 2017, the same was barred as the limitation period for such cognisance had lapsed.
However, additional public prosecutor KV Saste for the police opposed the petition and said that the case could be remanded to the magistrate to consider extension of limitation period, and hence, the proceedings should not be quashed.
After hearing the submissions, the bench observed that the cognisance of the offence could have been taken only up to one year from the date of offence.
“The request for remanding the matter back to the magistrate cannot be granted. There is nothing to show that the magistrate either applied his mind to the aspect of expiry of limitation or condoning the delay,” the bench observed.
In light of these observations, the court held that the criminal proceedings against the petitioner was not sustainable and hence quashed and set aside the same.
The bench then directed the police commissioner to initiate an appropriate inquiry against the IO concerned “who took more than one year for filing a report in such a trivial matter”, and said that the inquiry report be produced within three months.
