Writing ‘Police’ On Private Vehicle Doesn't Violate Any Provision Of Indian Penal Code: Calcutta High Court Quashes Complaint Case Against Inspector
The Calcutta High Court recently quashed a private complaint filed against a Police Officer for displaying the word ‘POLICE’ written on his personal vehicleThe single judge bench of Justice Bibek Chaudhuri said the court does not find violation of any penal provision under the IPC "only for displaying the word 'POLICE' on the front and rear screen of the personal vehicle of...
The Calcutta High Court recently quashed a private complaint filed against a Police Officer for displaying the word ‘POLICE’ written on his personal vehicle
The single judge bench of Justice Bibek Chaudhuri said the court does not find violation of any penal provision under the IPC "only for displaying the word 'POLICE' on the front and rear screen of the personal vehicle of the petitioner".
Justice Chaudhuri said the complaint filed by the opposite party is totally based on apprehension, if not surmise and conjecture.
"It is alleged by the complainant that by using as personal vehicle with the word “POLICE” written thereon, the petitioner may violate traffic signal. He may with dishonest intention induce another person to part with any property or valuable security. Causing wrongful loss to the petitioner and he has used his personal vehicle at public glance as if the said vehicle belongs to the police department. This act amounts to forgery. The learned Magistrate who issued process against the petitioner fails to consider that an apprehension that a person may commit an offence cannot be a basis of allegation," said the court
The complainant filed before Judicial Magistrate, 9th Court at Alipore stated that on February 7, 2022, he saw a private vehicle bearing the word “POLICE” written on its front and back screen. It was alleged that the word “POLICE” was written on the vehicle to create a false impression in the mind of general public as well as the public authorities that the vehicle belongs to Police Department. The information received under RTI Act revealed that the vehicle does not belong to the Police Department.
The complainant alleged that petitioner committed "personation" by showing his private vehicle publicly as the vehicle of the Police Department for the purpose of taking unlawful advantage from the general public as well as the public authorities and inducing them for the purpose of illegal gain by the registered owner of the vehicle and wrongful loss to the general members of the public.
It was further alleged that the petitioner has committed offences punishable under Section 419 (Punishment for cheating by personation), Section 420 (Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property), Section 467 (Forgery of valuable security, will, etc.), Section 468 (Forgery for purpose of cheating), Section 471 (Using as genuine a forged document or electronic record) and Section 170 (Personating a Public Servant) of IPC.
On the basis of the complaint filed by the complainant, the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (IC), South 24 Parganas at Alipore on September 21, 2022 took cognizance of offence under Section 190(1)(a) of CrPC and made over the case to the Judicial Magistrate, 9th Court at Alipore for examination of the complainant under Section 200 of the CrPC and further order.
On November 21, 2022, the complainant was examined under Section 200 of the CrPC and on the basis of his statement on oath and materials on record, the Magistrate issued process against the petitioner under the above-mentioned provisions of IPC. The petitioner, an Inspector, assailed the order of taking cognizance dated September 21, 2022 and the subsequent order dated November 21, 2022 before the High Court.
Advocate Sabir Ahmed, appearing for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner does not use the vehicle for his personal use and that it is used for the purpose of conducting official work including raid and also to work out some secret information.
It was further submitted that the previously too, the complainant had made a complaint against the petitioner on the same allegation to the police and after the investigation the petitioner was compelled to deposit a sum of Rs. 600/- as fine for wrongful act of parking the vehicle in no parking area.
Justice Chaudhuri observed it is not only the police personnel but officials of the State and Central Government the Judicial Officers, the representatives of the people, i.e., member of legislative assembly and members of parliament, and other dignitaries indiscriminately use their designation and the name of the office etc in their personal vehicles.
"It is almost regular experience of this Court that in spite of specific directions, even the High Court has not been able to stop this practice regularly committed by the judicial officers displaying their designation in their personal vehicles," said the court
The court further said that no specific avert act has been complained by the opposite party against the petitioner which may come within the meaning of an offence under the penal code. The complaint was filed against the petitioner only on suspicion, it added.
"I fail to understand as to how and why the learned Magistrate took cognizance of offence against the petitioner for committing offence under various penal provisions of IPC. Only allegation which has specifically made by the petitioner is that the petitioner parked his vehicle in no parking zone. Such act is punishable under the motor vehicle act and he was prosecuted under the Motor Vehicle Act and paid fine of Rs.600/-," said the court, while quashing the pending complaint case.
Case Title: Sri Sanjib Chakraborty v. Sri Subir Ranjan Chakraborty & Anr.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Cal) 124
Coram: Justice Bibek Chaudhuri