Alleged misuse, tampering of vehicle registration number
SHILLONG, Feb 18: The High Court of Meghalaya has quashed the FIR and the chargesheet filed against former Meghalaya Director General of Police Lajja Ram Bishnoi in a case pertaining to alleged misuse and tampering of a vehicle registration number.
Bishnoi had filed a criminal petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 praying that the FIR registered with the Sadar police station be set aside and quashed.
In its judgement and order passed on Tuesday, the single bench court of Justice Biswadeep Bhattacharjee said the brief fact of the case is that former police official Gabriel K Iangrai lodged an FIR with the Sadar police station against Bishnoi on May 9, 2024, alleging misuse and tampering of registration number of the vehicle in the use of the petitioner in the capacity of the DGP.
The FIR alleged commission of offence of criminal conspiracy and criminal breach of trust as well as forgery and cheating committed by the petitioner. The court said the FIR was registered under Section 409, 467, 471, 120B IPC read with Section 192 MV Act and the matter was investigated. A charge-sheet, dated 19-09-2024 and under Section 192 MV Act, was also submitted.
“No charge was made against the petitioner under Section 409/467/471/120B IPC. The said charge-sheet was brought into record of this court by way of an additional affidavit dated 27-01-2025 by the petitioner,” the court said in its order.
Assailing the entire proceeding initiated on the basis of the FIR and the charge-sheet, the former DGP’s counsel A Goyal submitted that Section 192 MV Act is a non-compoundable offence and the police are not authorised to investigate and seek trial against the petitioner on the basis of the chargesheet submitted in the case.
He submitted that the petitioner had not committed any offence as he was using the vehicle which was officially allotted to him. Goyal further submitted that ingredients of Section 192 MV Act were not present in the matter as it is not the case of the prosecution that the petitioner was using a vehicle without registration.
Goyal also submitted that Iangrai, who filed the FIR, is not the victim of any crime as alleged in the FIR and the FIR was instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance against the petitioner to spite him due to private and personal grudges as he was suspended from service and many proceedings were initiated against him during the petitioner’s tenure as the DGP. Goyal submitted that the institution of the case was aimed at harassing the petitioner and prayed for the quashing of the same.
Appearing for the state, Additional Advocate General ND Chullai submitted that upon the investigation of the matter, no case of criminal conspiracy, criminal breach of trust as well as forgery and cheating was made out against the petitioner.
He, however, submitted that the petitioner had not used the vehicle, which was allotted to him, as per the conditions stipulated by the Transport Department and, hence, the petitioner was charge-sheeted under Section 192 MV Act by the investigating authority.
The court said a perusal of the materials on record revealed the petitioner, upon his joining as the DGP, intended to use a Kia Carnival Limousine vehicle bearing registration number AS01 EY 3100 which was requisitioned from M/s Gautam Construction Company, Guwahati.
“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 1,310 per day and night haltage of Rs 200 with condition that the officer shall use the said Assam registered vehicle under Meghalaya registration and not any “ML-02” registered vehicle,” the court said.
“However, there is nothing on record to show that any specific Meghalaya registration number was allotted to the said vehicle. It appeared from the allegations made in the charge-sheet that the said vehicle was used with registration number “ML02 A 0001” which was allotted to a different vehicle of the police department…
“There is nothing on record to show that the said registration number was used on the instruction given by the petitioner. Furthermore, it appears that the condition contained in the approval of the Transport Department dated 01-08-2023 is contradictory in as much as “ML-02” registration cannot be regarded as not under Meghalaya registration,” the court said.
According to the court, in the facts and circumstances of the case, no charge was made out against the petitioner since the acts alleged in the charge-sheet do not fall and satisfy the ingredients of Section 192 MV Act.
“The counsels appearing for the respective parties do not dispute the fact that Section 192 MV Act is non-cognisable. Since the investigation in the Sadar P.S. FIR No. 141(5) 2024 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,” the court said.
Further, it stated that during the course of the investigation, when it transpired that the offence involved was actually non-cognisable, the investigating authority must have obtained permission from the magistrate concerned to investigate the offence.
In the 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-cognisable case without the order of a magistrate having power to try such case or commit the case for trial, the court said.
“In view of the discussions made above, this criminal petition succeeds. Resultantly, the proceedings of the Sadar P.S. FIR No. 141(5) 2024 under Section 409/467/471/120B IPC read with Section 192 MV Act and the charge-sheet No.38/24 dated 19-09-2024 under Section 192 MV Act are hereby quashed,” the court said.