Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 1309 (PNJ)

Rajinderpal v. State of Punjab

2008-08-04

AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH

body2008
JUDGMENT Augustine George Masih. J.:- This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been preferred by the petitioner for quashing of FIR No. 31 dated 29.07.2004 under Sections 467, 468, 471, 166, 167, 192, 120-B IPC and Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 registered at Police Station Vigilance Bureau, Patiala. 2. It has been contended by the petitioner that earlier the matter had been enquired into and a telegram was sent to the Punjab State Human Rights Commission, Chandigarh on 23.07.2004. The Punjab State Human Rights Commission, Chandigarh took cognizance of the matter and ordered an enquiry to be conducted by Inspector General of Police, Zone-I, Patiala. 3. The Inspector General of Police, Zone-I, Patiala enquired into the matter and came to the conclusion that a false case has been registered against the petitioner. On the basis of the enquiry report submitted to the Punjab State Human Rights Commission, Chandigarh, order for cancellation of the impugned FIR was passed by the Punjab State Human Rights Commission, Chandigarh on 10.11.2004. In compliance with the order dated 10.11.2004, a cancellation report was submitted by the police (Vigilance Bureau) in the above mentioned FIR. This was done on the basis of a letter No. 14/199/2004-4 Home, 3/305/Chandigarh dated 07.12.2004 issued by the Government of Punjab, Department of Home Affairs and Justice (Home 3 Branch). This letter was also based on the orders passed by the Punjab State Human Rights Commission, Chandigarh. 4. This submission of the cancellation report by the Vigilance Bureau was challenged by one Harikrishan Sood by filing CWP No.1226 of 2006 wherein he alleged that order dated 10.11.2004 passed by the Punjab State Human Rights Commission, Chandigarh is not sustainable in law as only recommendations could be forwarded to the Government by the Commission and no directions/orders could be issued to that effect. It was further contended that the State is not bound by the orders passed by the Commission and since the cancellation report has been submitted by the State only in compliance with the orders passed by the Punjab State Human Rights Commission, the same cannot be sustained. The State should apply its independent mind while coming to a conclusion with regard to the submission of the challan in the competent court. 5. The State should apply its independent mind while coming to a conclusion with regard to the submission of the challan in the competent court. 5. The above writ petition came up for hearing before a Division Bench of this Court on 21.04.2006. The Court allowed the writ petition and quashed the order dated 10.11.2004 passed by the Punjab State Human Rights Commission. This decision was based on the judgment of a Division Bench in Jatt Ram versus Punjab State Human Rights Commission and another, [2005(3) LAW HERALD (P&H) (DB) 173] : 2005 (3) P.L.R.297. It has been held in that case that the Commission cannot issue directions/orders but Government can make recommendations as per the Act under which the proceedings before the Commission are governed. As a consequence of the quashing of the order dated 10.11.2004, the cancellation report was also ordered to be quashed by the Court. The writ petition was disposed of with the observation that the investigation shall continue to proceed in FIR No. 31 dated 29.07.2004 registered at Police Station, Vigilance Bureau, Patiala in accordance with law. Thereafter a contempt petition was filed by Harikrishan Sood for non­compliance of the order of the judgment dated 21.4.2006. This contempt petition was disposed of by the Court with a direction that the investigation in the FIR be completed by 20.03.2007. 6. It has been contended on the basis of the above, that challan in the FIR No. 31 dated 29.7.2004 has been presented in the Court only to comply with the orders passed by the High Court in the contempt petition. The challan presented against the petitioner is glaringly contrary to the reply filed by the State in CWP NO. 1226 of 2006. No reason, whatsoever, has been given in the challan to differ from the reply filed by the State in the above mentioned writ petition. It has further been contended that before presentation of challan, the sanction, as required under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, has not been obtained and as the petitioner is a Government servant, therefore, the same is mandatory. He further contends that the registration of FIR itself is with a mala-fide intention and just to harass the petitioner and is on the basis of internal differences between the department and its officials. 7. I have gone through the petition. He further contends that the registration of FIR itself is with a mala-fide intention and just to harass the petitioner and is on the basis of internal differences between the department and its officials. 7. I have gone through the petition. A perusal of the same would clearly show that all efforts have been made from the very inception of the FIR that the investigation in this case is stalled by one method or the other. It is not in dispute that the petitioner initially approached the Punjab State Human Rights Commission. On orders dated 10.11.2004 passed by the Punjab State Human Rights Commission, the cancellation report in the FIR was submitted by the State. As the law stands, the Commission cannot issue any order or direction to the State but can only make recommendations, which are not binding on the State. Further since any order or direction passed by the Commission is not binding on the State, therefore, the presentation of cancellation report merely in compliance with the orders passed by the Commission was not called for as has been held by the High Court in its order dated 21.04.2006. The State was, thereafter, directed to investigate the matter thoroughly in FIR No. 21 dated 29.7.2004. In compliance of this order, the State was at liberty to come to its own conclusion with regard to presentation of challan to prosecute the accused or to submit the cancellation report. The State was thus required to independently form its opinion on the basis of the evidence collected during investigation. On completion of the investigation, the Department of Vigilance has submitted the challan in the competent court, wherein it has been observed that some substance has been found, which was required and the evidence is enough to prosecute the petitioner and other co-accused in the above mentioned FIR. This is having been done by the State after applying its independent mind. Therefore, the assertion of the petitioner, that the challan has merely been presented because the Court had so ordered, cannot be sustained. 8. As regards grant of sanction, it has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in various cases that the sanction for prosecution is not required at the stage of presentation of challan but the same is required when the Court is to take cognizance thereof. Therefore, this ground of challenge also cannot be accepted. 8. As regards grant of sanction, it has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in various cases that the sanction for prosecution is not required at the stage of presentation of challan but the same is required when the Court is to take cognizance thereof. Therefore, this ground of challenge also cannot be accepted. In any case this could be treated as a ground for cancellation of submission of challan but cannot be taken as a ground for quashing the FIR itself. 9. The third submission of the petitioner that the initiation of the FIR is bad as there is no complainant and the said FIR has been registered with a mala-fide intention also deserves to be rejected on the ground that the first information report is merely an information given to investigating agency to initiate the process. This submission, as a matter of fact, is also incorrect as the FIR (Annexure P-1) would clearly show that the said FIR has been registered on the basis of a Ruka received from Sh. Gursharan Singh Bedi, DSP, Vigilance Bureau, FS-2, Patiala. Therefore, it would not be correct on the part of the petitioner to contend that there is no complainant. The first information report is only to bring the investigation machinery into action so that the matter can be enquired into and if some substance is found therein, the culprit may be brought before the competent court to face the trial. 10. It is not in dispute that the challan has been presented before the competent court on 09.03.2008 and the matter is pending before the court. Mere presentation of challan does not give any cause of action for the petitioners to seek quashing of the FIR. All these grounds, which have been now taken by the petitioner before this Court, were available to him, when the FIR came into existence. Having not chosen to challenge the same then, it is not open to the petitioner to challenge the same at this stage. It has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that once challan has been presented in the competent court, the FIR may not be quashed. 11. I have gone through the contents of the FIR No. 31 dated 29.07.2004 (Annexure P-1) and the bare reading of the same would show that cognizable offence is made out from there. It has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that once challan has been presented in the competent court, the FIR may not be quashed. 11. I have gone through the contents of the FIR No. 31 dated 29.07.2004 (Annexure P-1) and the bare reading of the same would show that cognizable offence is made out from there. Therefore, the registration of FIR is in accordance with law. Finding no merit in the petition, I dismiss the same. --------------------