Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 758 (PNJ)

Darshan Singh v. State Of Punjab

2009-04-21

KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA

body2009
Judgment Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. 1. The present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of FIR No. 88 dated 6.6.1982 registered at Police Station Dayalpura, District Bathinda, under Sections 25, 54, and 59 of the Arms Act. The petitioner has further prayed that order dated 21.12.2008 passed by the Court of the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class-Cum- Presiding Officer, Lok Adalat, Phul, be also quashed wherein he has not accepted the recommendations of the District Magistrate, Bathinda, dated 26.11.1982 (Annexure P3) that the case be dropped against the petitioner. 2. On 6.6.1982, impugned FIR (Annexure P2) was registered against the petitioner as the District Magistrate, Bathinda, had communicated to. the Senior Superintendent of Police, Bathinda, that petitioner is having in his possession Semi Automatic Rifle without any valid license. Thereafter, on 26.11.1982, the District Magistrate, Bathinda, addressed a communication to the District Attorney, Bathinda, that case be withdrawn as the offence seems to be technical and there was no intention on the part of petitioner to transgress the law. 3. On 10.3.1983, police had recommended the cancellation report. It seems that various communications have been addressed between the District Attorney, Bathinda, Station House Officer, Police Station Dayalpura and the District Magistrate, Bathinda, that efforts be made that cancellation report be accepted. 4. Petitioner earlier filed Criminal Misc. No. M-30204 of 2008 and the following order was passed :- "On November 19, 2008, a Co-ordinate Bench had called for the status report. Judicial Magistrate (1st Class), Phul had submitted the following report :- "With due respect, I have the honour to submit that no proceedings were pending in this Court relating to case FIR No. 88 dated 6.6.82, P.S. Dialpura against caused Dar- shan Singh before 18.12.2008 i.e. till presentation of cancellation report. The cancellation report in this case was presented in the Court on 18.12.2008 and the same was rejected vide my detailed order dated 21.12.2008 and the same was sent back to SHO, P.S. Dialpura for further investigation as accused Darshan Singh son of Mehar Singh was having license for NP Bore Rifle only but he was found in possession of 351 Bore Rifle No. 37535 Semi-automatic with-out holding any valid license. Submitted please". Submitted please". In view of the report submitted by the Judicial Magistrate (1 st Class), Phul, counsel for the petitioner states that he may be perm itted to withdraw the present petition to challenge the order dated 21st December, 2008 in accordance with provisions of law. As prayed, present petition is dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty aforesaid". 5 After withdrawal of Criminal Misc. No. M-30204 of 2008, counsel for the petitioner has filed present petition. 6. Notice of motion was issued. 7. Reply has been filed by way of affidavit of the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Bathinda. 8. Counsel for the State has submitted that as far as the State is concerned, they have submitted cancellation report and they have found no evidence against the petitioner. 9. In the present case, FIR was registered in the year 1982. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that from the registration of the case, about 27 years are going to elapse. 10. In 1983, the District Magistrate, Bathinda, came to conclusion that case is to be withdrawn. Thereafter, in 1983 also, cancellation report was submitted. Somehow it was not taken up by the Court. Either it remained buried in the office of the District Attorney, Bathinda or in the office of the Senior Superintendent of Police Bathinda. 11. Counsel for the petitioner submits that since petitioner had to go abroad, he filed an application for issuance of passport and then it surfaced that the case is pending. 12. Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon judgment rendered in Pankaj Kumar v. State of Maharashtra & Others, 2008(4) RCR(CrL) 890 : 2008(6) RAJ 293 where the Honble Apex Court taking into consideration delay in conclusion of the trial had quashed the proceedings on the ground that the accused has a right to speedy trial. 13. In the present case, not only 27 years are going to elapse, the District Magistrate, Bathinda, had come to conclusion that offence is technical and no intention on the part of the petitioner to commit the offence is made out. Therefore, he had recommended withdrawal of the case. Furthermore, the Investigating Agency has submitted the cancellation report. The Judicial Magistrate 1 st Class, Phul, has not accepted the cancellation report. 14. Therefore, he had recommended withdrawal of the case. Furthermore, the Investigating Agency has submitted the cancellation report. The Judicial Magistrate 1 st Class, Phul, has not accepted the cancellation report. 14. Taking the whole scenario into view that 27 years are going to elapse, and the fact that State had recommended cancellation report, it is a fit case where proceedings arising out of FIR are ought to be quashed. 15. Hence, the present petition is allowed and the proceedings arising out of FIR No. 88 dated 6.6.1982 registered at Police Station Dayalpura, District Bathinda, under Sections 25, 54, and 59 of the Arms Act are quashed.