Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 1129 (PNJ)

Jagmail Singh v. State of Punjab

2004-10-05

M.M.KUMAR

body2004
JUDGMENT M.M. Kumar, J. - The prayer made in this petition is for issuing appropriate direction to the respondents, namely, State of Punjab for re-investigation of case FIR No. 66 dated 15.8.2000 registered under Sections 418, 465, 466, 467, 468, 471, 120-B Indian Penal Code at Police Station City Malout, District Muktsar by some independent agency like Central Bureau of Investigation etc. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the complainant lodged FIR No. 66 dated 15.8.2000 under Sections 418, 420, 465, 466, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B Indian Penal Code against the petitioner who has been working as Naib Tehsildar alleging that at the time of sanctioning of the mutation regarding inheritance of Ganda Singh deceased, his wife and two sons, namely, Chanan Kaur, Balbir Singh and Bakhshish Singh were alive. However, the mutation was not sanctioned in their favour. During investigation, it has been found that the allegations levelled against the petitioner in the FIR were false. The wife of deceased Ganda Singh was in fact not alive and Balbir Singh and Bakshish Singh are the brothers sons of Ganda Singh and not the sons of Ganda Singh. The aforementioned findings of the investigation have also been accepted by the District Attorney. Despite the investigation and the opinion of the District Attorney expressed on 8.6.2000, FIR No. 66 was registered on 15.8.2000. The petitioner has also alleged that FIR No. 34 dated 26.3.2002 was registered against the complainant by one Harbans Singh with whom the complainant is having litigation. It is further asserted that Anti Fraud Squad, Muktsar has investigated the case FIR No. 66 dated 15.8.2000 and in its report dated 16.9.2000 submitted to the Senior Superintendent of Police Muktsar, the petitioner has been found to be innocent and it has been recommended that the FIR be cancelled. However, the complainant further filed an application for conducting an enquiry in the matter and the Superintendent of Police (S), Muktsar after holding the enquiry has ordered the filing of challan against the petitioner. His opinion is alleged to be based on mere perusal of the file, on the basis of which he has made recommendation concluding that it was a fit case for filing the challan. 3. The stand taken in the reply is that there is active concealment of facts inasmuch as the petitioner had earlier approached this Court by filing Criminal Misc. 3. The stand taken in the reply is that there is active concealment of facts inasmuch as the petitioner had earlier approached this Court by filing Criminal Misc. No. 39544-M of 2000 for quashing FIR No. 34 dated 26.3.2002 under Sections 465/466/468/120-B Indian Penal Code at Police Station Sadar Malout. This Court vide order dated 3.7.2002 had directed that the investigation be completed within three months and the Senior Superintendent of Police was directed to get the investigation carried by one Investigating Officer who may be deputed by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Muktsar because there is another FIR No. 66 dated 15.8.2000 against the same petitioner. It has further been alleged that sanction for presenting the challan has already been obtained by the prosecuting agency against the petitioner on 22.3.2004 (Annexure R-2/2). It is further alleged that the petitioner has not been found to be innocent in the departmental proceedings conducted by the Senior Superintendent of Police (Civil), Muktsar. He has in fact been found guilty of having tampered with the revenue record and sanctioning the mutation wrongly in the enquiry conducted by the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Muktsar as set out in the report dated 3.11.2000 (Annexure R-2/3). Even the version of the petitioner with regard to the fact whether Balbir Singh and Bakhshish Singh were sons of Ganda Singh have been disputed. A detailed reference has been made to certain other documents. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the Naib Tehsildar as Presiding Officer has acted in accordance with law and all his actions are protected under the law. According to the learned counsel if the investigation is directed to be conducted by an independent agency like Central Bureau of Investigation, the truth will come out and the recommendation made by the Superintendent of Police (S), Muktsar for filing the challan would be found absolutely baseless. 5. Learned State counsel has argued that there is no legal right for the petitioner to get the case investigated from a particular investigating agency. He has referred to the provisions of Section 362 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity, Criminal Procedure Code) and argued that in view of the order passed by this Court on 3.7.2002 in Criminal Misc. No. 39544-M of 2000, no further order could be passed as it would amount to reviewing its earlier order. 6. He has referred to the provisions of Section 362 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity, Criminal Procedure Code) and argued that in view of the order passed by this Court on 3.7.2002 in Criminal Misc. No. 39544-M of 2000, no further order could be passed as it would amount to reviewing its earlier order. 6. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I am of the considered view that this petition is liable to be dismissed because the reports prepared by the investigating agencies either in favour of the petitioner or against him have to be properly considered by the trial Court. It is well settled by a catena of judgments of the Supreme Court that the opinion expressed by the Police is not final. The criminal Courts after application of mind may accept or reject the report submitted by the investigating agency. In this regard reference may be made to the judgments of the Supreme Court in the cases of Abhinandan Jha and others v. Dinesh Mishra, AIR 1968 Supreme Court 117; King Emperor v. Khwaja Nazir Ahmad, AIR 1945 PC 18; S.N. Sharma v. Bipin Kumar Tiwari, 1970(1) SCC 653; H.S. Bains v. The State (Union Territory of Chandigarh), AIR 1980 Supreme Court 1883 and M.C. Abraham v. State of Maharashtra, 2003(2) SCC 649. It is equally well settled that the Courts cannot issue direction to the investigating agency to present a challan or to refrain from doing so. Merely because investigating agencies have differed in their opinion, would not constitute a ground for either issuing direction for further investigation nor it would result into quashing the proceedings initiated by the prosecution. The powers of the investigating agencies and the Courts are well defined. Although their powers run side by side like two channels but their water never intermingles. 7. In the present case already investigation has been held and eventually it has been decided to present a challan against the petitioner who is a public servant. For presentation of challan, sanction has also been obtained as is required by Section 197(1) Criminal Procedure Code I am further of the view that issuing directions for investigation of the offences again would result into reviewing the order dated 3.7.2002 passed in Criminal Misc. For presentation of challan, sanction has also been obtained as is required by Section 197(1) Criminal Procedure Code I am further of the view that issuing directions for investigation of the offences again would result into reviewing the order dated 3.7.2002 passed in Criminal Misc. No. 39544-M of 2000 (Annexure R-2/1) as on the request made by the petitioner same investigating officer was directed to conduct the investigation who was incharge of the case FIR No. 34 dated 26.3.2002 registered under Sections 465/466/120-B Indian Penal Code at Police Station Sadar, Malout. For the reasons stated above, this petition fails and the same is dismissed. However, any observation made in this order shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on merits of the matter. Petition dismissed.