Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 29 (PNJ)

Sukhwinder Singh v. State Of Punjab

2007-01-10

SATISH KUMAR MITTAL

body2007
Judgment Satish Kumar Mittal, J. 1. This order shall dispose of Crl. Misc. No. 30303-M of 2006 and Crl. Misc. No. 49347-M of 2006, filed by Sukhwinder Singh and Jagir Singh and others, respectively, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as `the Code) for quashing of challan filed by the police in DDR No. 27 dated 10.12.2004 as a cross version case in FIR No. 365 dated 10.12.2004 under Sections 302/307/148/149 IPC and Section 25/54/59 of the Arms Act, registered at Police Station Mohali. 2. The brief facts of the case are that on 10.12.2004, in the morning, Mehar Singh brother of petitioner Jagir Singh was alleged to have been murdered by Tarlochan Singh and Baldev Singh, when he was going to tie his animals from his house to Bara. In this regard, on the basis of statement of petitioner Jagir Singh, the aforesaid FIR No. 365 dated 10.12.2004 was registered against them and the other accused. On the same day, in the evening, on the complaint of Baldev Singh, cross version of the accused was recorded vide DDR No. 27. On an application filed by Paramjit Kaur wife of accused Baldev Singh, an inquiry was conducted by Superintendent of Police, Mohali, on the directions of Senior Superintendent of Police, in the allegations made, in DDR No. 27. After a detailed enquiry, the allegations levelled by accused Baldev Singh in the said DDR were found to be false and fabricated made with an object to take defence that the petitioners party was the aggressor. Copy of the said report is annexed with CH. Misc. No. 49347-M of 2006 as Annexure P-6. Subsequently, accused BaIdev Singh filed Crl. Misc. No. 27725-M of 2005 in this Court under Section 482 of the Code for issuing direction to the police to file challan in the cross case registered vide DDR No. 27 dated 10.12.2004. In that petition, reply by way of affidavit of Gurjit Singh, SHO, Police Station Mohali was filed, in which it was stated that in DDR No. 27 a thorough investigation was conducted at different levels and the allegations contained therein were found to be false, therefore, no challan is required to be filed by the police on the basis of the said DDR. After filing the reply, the said petition was dismissed as withdrawn on 11.8.2005 with liberty to accused Baldev Singh to file criminal complaint regarding his counter version. 3. Thereafter, accused Baldev Singh filed a private complaint against the petitioners for offence under Sections 307, 324, 326, 148, 149 IPC, in which vide order dated 1.11.2006, passed by Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, S.A.S. Nagar, Mohali, all the petitioners, except petitioner Gurpreet Singh, were summoned to face trial under Sections 326, 452, 148, 149 IPC. Copy of the order has been annexed as Annexure R-6/4. 4. In the meanwhile, when the SHO Police Station Mohali was transferred, new SHO, namely Inspector Jagdish Singh filed chalan in DDR No. 27 without disclosing the aforesaid facts. Thereafter, these petitions were filed by the petitioners. 5. In the written statement, filed on behalf of respondents No. 1 to 4, the aforesaid factual position has been admitted and it has been stated that a detailed enquiry was conducted by Superintendent of Police, Mohali in the allegations made in DDR No. 27 dated 10.12.2004 and the allegations were found to be false and baseless. It has also been stated that the said report was accepted by SSP, Ropar and approved by ADGP Crime, Punjab. On the basis of the said inquiry report, Gurjeet Singh SHO, Police Station Phase VIII, Mohali, had submitted an affidavit in this Court in Crl. Misc. No. 27724-M of 2005 to the effect that no challan is going to be filed in DDR No. 27 as the allegations were found to be false. It has been further stated that respondent Jagdish Singh Inspector, SHO, Police Station Mohali, without taking any prior permission from the higher officers filed challan in DDR No. 27 and for his illegal and unauthorised act, administrative action is being taken against him by the competent authority. 6. Counsel for the petitioners submits that in view of the above facts, the challan filed by the police in DDR No. 27 dated 10.12.2004 is liable to be quashed. The State Counsel has not opposed the prayer made by the petitioners, in view of the stand taken in reply. However, counsel for accused Baldev Singh has opposed the prayer made by the petitioners. The State Counsel has not opposed the prayer made by the petitioners, in view of the stand taken in reply. However, counsel for accused Baldev Singh has opposed the prayer made by the petitioners. He submits that under the Code, the SHO is the competent person to file the challan and in case, the SHO has filed challan in DDR No. 27, the same cannot be quashed. 7. I do not find any force in the submission made by counsel for accused Baldev Singh. In this case, earlier a detailed enquiry was conducted by Superintendent of Police Mohali. His enquiry report was accepted by Senior Superintendent of Police, Ropar and then approved by the ADGP Crime, Punjab. Thereafter, a decision was taken by the police not to file challan in DDR No. 27. Gurjit Singh, the then SHO, Police Station Mohali filed affidavit in Crl. Misc. No. 27724-M of 2005 in this Court stating therein that the allegations levelled in the DDR No. 27 are false and no challan is going to be filed in the same. Even the aforesaid petition filed by accused Baldev Singh under Section 482 of the Code for issuing direction to the police to file challan in DDR No. 27 was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file complaint. Thereafter, a complaint was filed by accused Baldev Singh against the petitioners, in which vide order dated 1.11.2006, passed by the Judicial Magistrate, all the petitioners, except petitioner Gurpreet Singh, have been summoned to face trial under Sections 326, 452, 148, 149 IPC. The said complaint is still pending. Further, during the pendency of these petitions, accused Baldev Singh filed a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. (Crl. Misc. No. 64984-M of 2005) seeking direction to the trial Court to club the FIR as well as the complaint case. Thereafter, vide order dated 28.2.2006, passed by this Court, it was directed that both the cases be decided by one and the same Court and judgment be pronounced simultaneously. In view of these facts, in my opinion, the SHO, who took over charge after transfer of Gurjeet Singh, has committed illegality while filing challan in DDR No. 27 dated 10.12.2004 by concealing the facts and even without taking prior approval from the Senior Superintendent of Police. In view of these facts, in my opinion, the SHO, who took over charge after transfer of Gurjeet Singh, has committed illegality while filing challan in DDR No. 27 dated 10.12.2004 by concealing the facts and even without taking prior approval from the Senior Superintendent of Police. Since in the private complaint, the petitioners have already been summoned and the said complaint is to be decided by the same Court, in my opinion, no prejudice is going to be caused in case the challan filed in DDR No. 27 dated 10. 12.2004 is quashed. 8. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, both these petitions are allowed and challan filed by the police in DDR No. 27 dated 10.12.2004 as a cross version case in FIR No. 365 dated 10.12.2004 under Sections 302/307/148/149 IPC and Section 25/54/59 of the Arms Act, registered at Police Station Mohali is quashed.