HT Digital
SHILLONG, Feb 19: The Meghalaya High Court has dismissed the FIR and chargesheet against former DGP Lajja Ram Bishnoi in a case of alleged misuse and alteration of a vehicle registration number.
Justice Biswadeep Bhattacharjee, in delivering the verdict, observed, “The charges brought against the petitioner do not meet the requirements under the laws. Hence, the FIR and chargesheet cannot be maintained.”
Related Posts:
Bishnoi had come to court with a criminal petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, asking for the FIR filed at the Sadar police station to be quashed.
The complaint was registered by ex-police officer Gabriel K. Iangrai, who had complained on May 9, 2024, that Bishnoi had used and tampered with the vehicle registration number while serving as the DGP.
The FIR charged Bishnoi with “criminal conspiracy, criminal breach of trust, forgery, and cheating.”
The court observed that though the FIR had been lodged under Sections 409, 467, 471, and 120B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 192 of the Motor Vehicles (MV) Act, the charge-sheet presented on September 19, 2024, contained charges only under Section 192 of the MV Act.
Justice Bhattacharjee observed, “No charges under Sections 409, 467, 471, or 120B IPC have been made against the petitioner.”
Bishnoi’s counsel, A. Goyal contended, “Section 192 of the MV Act is a non-compoundable offense, and the police cannot investigate and file a charge-sheet against my client. He was driving an official vehicle which was assigned to him.” He added, “There is no allegation that my client was driving an unregistered vehicle. Additionally, the FIR was registered due to personal vendetta, as the complainant, Iangrai, was suspended and subject to several proceedings during my client’s time as DGP.”
Speaking on behalf of the state, Additional Advocate General N.D. Chullai presented, “The investigation revealed no criminal conspiracy, criminal breach of trust, forgery, or cheating against the petitioner.”
Nevertheless, he contended, “The petitioner had not utilized the assigned vehicle in terms of the guidelines of the Transport Department, and hence the charge under Section 192 of the MV Act.”
The court went through the facts of the case and discovered that Bishnoi, when he became the DGP, had chosen to travel in a Kia Carnival Limousine with the number plate AS01 EY 3100 rented from M/s Gautam Construction Company, Guwahati.
The Transport Department had sanction for the use of the vehicle on August 1, 2023, at a daily rate of Rs 1,310 along with a night haltage allowance of ₹200.
The sanction said, “The vehicle shall be operated in Assam-registered condition under Meghalaya registration but not an ‘ML-02’ registration.”
The court noted, however, “There is no evidence of any particular Meghalaya registration number being allocated to the vehicle. The charge-sheet states that the vehicle was utilized with the registration number ‘ML02 A 0001,’ which belonged to some other police department vehicle.”
The court also noted, “There is no evidence to indicate that the petitioner directed the utilization of this registration number.”
The court held that the Section 192 charges were not tenable. Justice Bhattacharjee stated, “Both sides concede that Section 192 is a non-cognizable offense. As the investigation was not undertaken on the order of a magistrate, the police had no power to place the case for trial.”
The judge went on to explain, “If a non-cognizable offense is found to be committed during an investigation, permission from a magistrate would have to be taken prior to proceeding. In this instance, no permission was taken, rendering the charge-sheet legally invalid under Section 155(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.”
Passing the last judgment, Justice Bhattacharjee declared, “Considering the above discussions, this criminal petition succeeds. The proceedings of the Sadar police station FIR No. 141(5) 2024 under Sections 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.”
