Read Time: 09 minutes

Synopsis

The Calcutta High Court recently dismissed a complaint made against a Police Officer for having the term 'POLICE' printed on his own vehicle.

The single judge bench of Justice Bibek Chaudhuri stated that the court found no breach of any penal provision under the IPC only for displaying the word 'POLICE' on the front and rear screens of the petitioner's personal vehicle.

Further, Justice Chaudhuri said, "The complainant’s allegation is entirely founded on apprehension."

 "The 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 the allegation," the court added.

The complainant claimed that the petitioner might violate traffic signals by driving a personal vehicle with the word "POLICE" printed on it. "He may, with malice, compel another person to part with property or valuable security. Causing wrongful loss to the public and utilising his own vehicle in public as if it belonged to the police department. This act is equivalent to forging", the complainant claimed. 

According to the complaint filed before Judicial Magistrate at Alipore, on February 7, 2022, the complainant witnessed a private vehicle with the term "POLICE" written on its front and back screens. It was stated that the word was written to give the general public and public officials the idea that the vehicle belonged to the Police Department. But according to the information obtained under the RTI Act, the car did not belong to the Police Department.

Further, it had been claimed that the petitioner committed "personation" by publicly displaying his private vehicle as the vehicle of the Police Department in order to take unlawful advantage of the general public as well as public authorities and induce them for the purpose of illegal gain by the registered owner of the vehicle and wrongful loss to general members of the public.

It was also claimed that the petitioner committed offences punishable under Sections 419 (Punishment for Personation Cheating), 420 (Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property), 467 (Forgery of valuable security, will, etc.), 468 (Forgery for the purpose of cheating), 471 (Using as genuine a forged document or electronic record), and 170 (Personating a Public Servant) of IPC.

On September 21, 2022, the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, South 24 Parganas at Alipore took cognizance under Section 190(1)(a) of the CrPC and transferred it to the Judicial Magistrate, 9th Court at Alipore for examination of the complainant under Section 200 of the CrPC.

On November 21, 2022, the complainant was interrogated under Section 200 of the CrPC, and the Magistrate issued a process against the petitioner under the aforementioned IPC sections based on his statement under oath and papers on record.

The petitioner, an Inspector, challenged the cognizance order of September 21, 2022, as well as the subsequent order dated November 21, 2022, before the present court.

Advocate Sabir Ahmed, representing the petitioner stated before the present bench that he had not used the vehicle for his personal use; he had used that for official works such as raids.

He further submitted that the complainant had earlier filed a complaint against the petitioner with the police on the same charge and that following the investigation the petitioner was forced to pay a fine of Rs. 600 for iimproper act of parking the vehicle in a no parking area.

The bench stated that not only police officers, but also officials of the State and Central Government, Judicial Officers, representatives of the people i.e., members of the legislative assembly and members of parliament, and other dignitaries, use their designation and the name of the office, among other things in their personal vehicles.

Further, the bench mentioned, “There is no 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.”

The court further stated that the complaint was brought solely on suspicion against the petitioner.

“I fail to understand as to how and why the learned Magistrate took cognizance of offence against the petitioner for committing an offence under various penal provisions of IPC. The only allegation which had been 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 a fine of Rs.600/-,” the court added.

Accordingly, the court quashed the complainant.

Case Title: Sri Sanjib Chakraborty v. Sri Subir Ranjan Chakraborty & Anr.