Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 1016 (PNJ)

Baljit Singh v. State Of Punjab

2005-09-22

ADARSH KUMAR GOEL

body2005
Judgment Adarsh Kumar Goel, J. 1. This petition has been filed for quashing FIR dated 27.6.1990, Annexure P-1. 2. FIR has been lodged by the Vigilance Department, alleging that the petitioner had acquired assets worth Rs. 4,56,680/- more than his known sources of income during the check period from 1.6.1983 to 31.12.1997 by corrupt and illegal means. Acquired assets were to be extent of Rs. 9,08,226/- and income from known sources was Rs. 4,51,546.35. 3. In the petition for quashing, it is stated that the petitioner joined service as Deputy Superintendent of Police in the year 1963 and was promoted as Superintendent of Police in the year 1972. He was given IPS cadre promotion and was also given selection grade. He was promoted as DIG on 7.12.1992 and I.G. on 20.3.1995. He retired from service on 31.3.1995. It is further stated that the case was false as property of mother and sisters son was wrongly included in the property of the petitioner. It is further stated that the Superintendent of Police (Vigilance) Shri Anoop Singh recommended that the FIR be cancelled in the year 1991 but the Director General, Vigilance did not agree with his recommendation and suggested that untraced report be sent. The matter remained pending with the Secretary, Vigilance/Chief Secretary and the petitioner was given promotions. After retirement, his pensionary benefits were also released. He was filing income tax returns and income tax department did not find any infirmity. In July 1997, the Chief Secretary ordered further investigation and filing of challan, without any material. 4. In the reply filed by the Additional Secretary, Vigilance, it is stated that registration of FIR was ordered after examining the matter. Recommendation about cancellation of FIR was not accepted after examining legal and accounts experts and promotions were given as mere registration of FIR was not a bar to promotion as neither any charge-sheet had been given nor challan filed in the Court. Vide letter dated 30.3.1994, a direction was issued to verify amounts received by the petitioner from abroad without the permission of the Government. The petitioner claimed that the said amounts represented return of the loan which he had advanced but no proof was given. Vide letter dated 30.3.1994, a direction was issued to verify amounts received by the petitioner from abroad without the permission of the Government. The petitioner claimed that the said amounts represented return of the loan which he had advanced but no proof was given. Recommendation of the Vigilance Bureau that the amounts which were earlier ignored ought to be included in his income, was not accepted and therefore, Vigilance Bureau was asked vide letter dated 4.7.1997 to file the challan in Court. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Chief Secretary Vigilance could not interfere with the opinion formed by the investigating agency. Reliance is placed on judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in Union of India v. Prakash P. Hinduja and another, 2003(3) RCR(Crl.) 556 (SC) : 2004(1) Apex Criminal 325 : AIR 2003 SC 2612, Paras 25 and 26. He also submitted that whether or not challan was to be filed, was to be decided by the investigating agency, as held in Abhinanadan Jha and others v. Dinesh Mishra, AIR 1968 SC 117. It was further stated that there was no basis for the Chief Secretary to take a different view and that there was long and unexplained delay in filing the challan. Reliance is placed on judgment of this Court in Raghbir Singh v. State of Haryana, 1989(2) RCR 679 and Gurdeep Singh v. The State of Punjab, 1990(3) RCR(Criminal) 565. 6. Learned counsel for the State submitted that under the rules of business, the Chief Secretary/Secretary Vigilance, exercising the powers of the State Government, of superintendence under Section 3 of the Police Act, 1861, disagreed with the view of the Director, Vigilance. It was submitted that the judgment in P. Hinduja (supra) was distinguishable. It was also submitted that the State Government was the authority to grant sanction, which power under rules of business could be exercised by Secretary to the Government. Reliance is placed on Krishna Iyer v. State of Kerala, 2005(1) Recent Criminal Reports 909 and Mallikarjun Basalingappa Balipadi v. State of Karnataka, 2005(2) Recent Criminal Reports 263. It was further submitted that power of quashing could not be exercised to stifle legitimate prosecution and such power could be exercised only to interfere with any frivolous, vexatious or oppressive prosecution. Reliance is placed on Md. Malek Mondal v. Pranjal Bardalai and another, 2005(2) RCR(Criminal) 794. 7. It was further submitted that power of quashing could not be exercised to stifle legitimate prosecution and such power could be exercised only to interfere with any frivolous, vexatious or oppressive prosecution. Reliance is placed on Md. Malek Mondal v. Pranjal Bardalai and another, 2005(2) RCR(Criminal) 794. 7. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the record. 8. As regards the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner that there was no material warranting prosecution, a perusal of letter dated 4.7.1997 from Vigilance department to the Chief Director, Vigilance shows that a conscious decision had been taken for filing of the challan. Merits of the said letter cannot be gone into at this stage, however valid defence the petitioner may be having. 9. Decisions in Abhinandan and Hinduja (supra) do not rule out jurisdiction of the State Government in the matter. In Abhinandan Jha (supra), question was whether the magistrate could require the investigating officer to file a charge-sheet. It was held that though, magistrate could disagree with the opinion of investigating agency and could take cognizance, a direction to file charge-sheet could not be given. In Hinduja (supra), it was held that quashing of proceedings by the High Court on the ground that opinion of the Central Vigilance Bureau had not been taken before filing of the charge-sheet, was disapproved. In the present case, neither of the two questions is involved. 10. As regards delay, no doubt, a period of about five years has been taken by the Government after the decision of the Vigilance department in March 1992 but that by itself will not be enough for quashing the proceedings unless prejudice is shown to have been caused, as held by the Honble Supreme Court in P. Ramachandra Rao v. State of Karnataka, 2002(2) RCR(Crl.) 553 (SC) : (2002)4 SCC 578. The judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner is on its own facts. 11. I, therefore, do not find any ground for quashing of the FIR at this stage. 12. The petition is dismissed. It is made clear that nothing said herein above will be treated as an expression of any opinion on merits of the case.