Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 2538 (PNJ)

Ranbir Singh v. State Of Haryana

2006-07-06

M.M.KUMAR, M.M.S.BEDI

body2006
Judgment M. M. KUMAR, J. 1. This petition prays for issuance of a writ of certiorari for quashing charge sheet dated 27.4.2006 (P-6) issued by the superintendent of Police, Kurukshetra. A further prayer has been made for quashing order dated 27.4.2006 (P-7) placing the petitioner under suspension during the pendency of inquiry. It has also been directed by the aforementioned order that the proceedings be held on day-to-day basis. 2. The petitioner is facing charges of attempt to rape a lady constable by showing her revolver before a criminal court. A case under Sec.376/511, 342/506 IPC has been registered against the petitioner vide FIR No.213, dated 24.4.2006 at Police Station Sadar, thanesar. The petitioner has also prayed for staying the entire departmental proceedings during the pendency of criminal proceedings. 3. We have heard learned counsel who has argued that the defence of the petitioner would be seriously prejudiced if departmental proceedings are permitted to continue. According to the learned counsel the aforementioned principle has been laid down by HON BLE the Supreme Court in the case of State Bank of India V/s. R. B. Sharma, 2005 (1) Apex Court Judgments 77. However, learned counsel has conceded that the departmental proceedings are in progress and three departmental witnesses have been examined and the petitioner has also cross-examined those witnesses. 4. On our repeated queries learned counsel has not been able to point out as to how the defence of the petitioner is likely to be prejudiced even if it is presumed that the witnesses and the charges are common in both departmental proceedings as well as in criminal proceedings. The ratio of the judgment cited by the learned counsel in State Bank of Indias case (supra) categorically lay down that the petitioner has to show serious prejudice in the departmental proceedings before the Court would exercise jurisdiction for staying the departmental proceedings during the pendency of a criminal charge. No such could be presumed. We are further of the view that the department has already examined three witnesses, which have been subjected to cross-examination by the petitioner and it is too late for him to contend that his defence would be prejudiced. At this stage, learned counsel has pointed out that those three witnesses are only clerical staff who have brought the record. 5. We are further of the view that the department has already examined three witnesses, which have been subjected to cross-examination by the petitioner and it is too late for him to contend that his defence would be prejudiced. At this stage, learned counsel has pointed out that those three witnesses are only clerical staff who have brought the record. 5. In view of above, we are of the view that jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 in such like cases could not be exercised, especially when the petitioner, who is a member of a disciplined force, is facing serious charges of outraging modesty of his own colleague in the police department. Even otherwise the case does not fall within the principles laid down in Capt. M. Paul Anthony V/s. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. and another, (1999) 3 SCC 679, nor within the ambit of the judgment which has been cited by the learned counsel. There is no merit in this petition Dismissed.