Meghalaya HC Quashes FIR, Chargesheet Against Ex-DGP Accused Of Misusing Official Vehicle Registration Number

In its five-page order, a bench of Justice Biswadeep Bhattacharjee noted that the petitioner had the approval to use the vehicle, but no specific Meghalaya registration number was allotted to it, and while the car was used with a particular registration number, which was meant for a different police vehicle, there was no evidence that the same was done on the petitioner's instructions.

Thus, the Court concluded that no charge was made against him since the acts alleged in the charge sheet did not fall within and satisfy the ingredients of Section 192 of the MV Act [Using vehicle without registration].

Background of the Case

Essentially, on May 9, 2024, GK Iangrai, a 2004 batch Meghalaya Police Service officer under suspension for alleged misappropriation of funds, lodged an FIR against the petitioner—then serving as the DGP—of misusing and tampering with the vehicle's registration number.

The FIR was lodged under Sections 409/467/471/120B IPC, read with Section 192 M V Act, on the allegations that he used a fake registration number on his official vehicle. A charge sheet was, however, filed against him only under Section 192 of the MV Act.

The informant alleged that the vehicle in question was an Assam-registered Kia Carnival Limousine registered with the Assam government. However, he further alleged that the vehicle's registration number was that of a Hyundai Verna registered with Meghalaya's Transport Department.

Upon investigation, the police filed a charge sheet on September 19, 2024, under Section 192 of the MV Act alleging that the petitioner had used the vehicle with the registration number “ML-02-A-0001,” a number which had been allocated to a different police department vehicle.

The chargesheet also concluded that the petitioner did not use the vehicle allotted to him as per the conditions stipulated by the Transport Department.

Challenging the FIR and chargesheet, the petitioner moved the HC, wherein his counsel argued that Section 192 of the MV Act is a non-cognizable offence and that the police are not authorised to investigate and seek trial against the petitioner on the basis of the chargesheet submitted in the case.

It was also argued that the petitioner did not commit any offence as he was using the vehicle that was officially allotted to him. It was also contended that the institution of the case was aimed at harassing the petitioner and prayed for its quashing.

The Court's Verdict

After hearing the arguments, the judge noted that there was nothing on record to show that any specific Meghalaya registration number was allotted to the vehicle or that the registration number was used on the instruction given by the petitioner.

Furthermore, the Court found the conditions set out by the Transport Department regarding vehicle use to be contradictory. It noted that though the approval had stipulated that the vehicle be used under Meghalaya registration, it did not specify a particular registration number.

Furthermore, the Court noted that the investigation in the case was not conducted based on an order passed by the Magistrate (S. 192 MV Act being a non-cognizable offence); 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 actually non-cognizable, the investigating authority must have obtained permission from the concerned Magistrate to investigate the offence. In absence of any such permission, the charge-sheet submitted cannot be rendered valid in terms of 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,” the bench remarked.

In view of this, the FIR and chargesheet were quashed, and the plea was allowed.