Cognizance of offenses under Sections 193, 194, and 211 I.P.C. cannot be taken without a complaint from the concerned court, as per the provisions of Section 195(1)(b)(i) of the Criminal Procedure Code.

K.S.Kumaran, J.

1. Petitioner-Avindervir Singh has approached this Court under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for grant of bail in case R.C. No. 33/93 dated 8.10.1993 registered at Central Bureau of Investigation, Chandigarh under Sections 193, 194, 211 and 218 read with Section 120-B I.P.C., which is being opposed by the respondent.

2. Kulwant Singh, an Advocate, his wife and child were allegedly abducted and murdered. A case in F.I.R. No. 10 of 1993 dated 8.2.1993 was registered at Police Station Sadar, Ropar in this regard. One Harpreet Singh alias Lucky son of Gurmit Singh Saini was allegedly produced before the police by Avtar Singh, Lambardar, village Taparian. Harpreet Singh alias Lucky who had allegedly surrendered before the police, made a confessional statement before the Court stating that he had kidnapped and murdered Kulwant Singh, his wife and child. The above said F.I.R. No. 10 dated 8.2.1993 was recorded on the basis of the ruqa sent by the petitioner-Avindervir Singh who was the Station House Officer, Police Station Sadar, Ropar. According to the F.I.R., while the petitioner-Avindervir Singh, ASI-Darshan Singh, ASI-Didar Singh and three constables had organised naqa near Bela Chowk Ropar and were present there, the petitioner received a secret information that Kulwant Singh and his family were kidnapped by Harpreet Singh alias Lucky and Surjit Singh with the intent to murder them. On the basis of this, the case was registered u/S 364 I.P.C.

3. But with regard to this incident, the Punjab & Haryana High Court Bar Association filed a civil writ petition before this Court praying that the investigation must be conducted by the Central Bureau of Investigation. This High Court dismissed the said Civil Writ Petition and the Punjab & Haryana High Court Bar Association preferred S.L.P. (Civil Appeal 7243/93) before the Honble Supreme Court. The Honble Supreme Court ordered the C.B.I. to investigate into the matter. The C.B.I. submitted its report to the Honble Supreme Court stating among other things that -

(1) Harpreet Singh alias Lucky who is presently facing trial in connection with the case in F.I.R. No. 10/93 of Police Station Sadar, Ropar before the Designated Court Nabha, has been falsely implicated in this case,

(2) S.I.-Avindervir Singh, ASI-Darshan Singh, Inspector-Balwant Singh and D.S.P.-Jaspal Singh are prima facie responsible for the false implication of Harpreet Singh alias Lucky in the aforesaid case and are liable for prosecution for offences under Sections 193, 194, 211 and 218 I.P.C., and

(3) that the State Government of Punjab may be directed to take suitable action against Shri Sanjiv Gupta, D.I.G., Punjab Police for lack of supervision.

4. The Honble Supreme Court took note of the report of the Central Bureau of Investigation and observed that the police officers falsely implicated Harpreet Singh alias Lucky and directed that Harpreet Singh be released from jail forthwith, and also directed the Panjab Government to pay compensation to him for the sufferings caused to him because of the false implication in this case and in particular, his remaining in jail for a long period. The Honble Supreme Court also observed that the appellant before them namely, the Punjab & Haryana High Court Bar Association and the prosecutor shall be at liberty to argue before the trial Court that the material collected by the C.B.I. including its report show that the police officers are prima facie responsible for the abduction and murder of Kulwant Singh and his family and are liable for prosecution for offences under the relevant provisions of the Indian Penal Code.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the trial against Harpreet Singh alias Lucky is still pending before the trial Court that the trial Court has not appreciated the evidence before it and has not come to any conclusion that the evidence given was false or fabricated, and that there is no finding that a false charge of offence has