Back
2008 Supreme(P&H) 1305
2008(4) LAW HERALD (P&H) 2983
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Augustine George Masih
Crl. Misc.No.19004-M of 2008(O&M)
Rajinderpal
v.
State of Punjab
{Decided on 04/08/2008}
For the Petitioner:Mr. Ranjan Lakhanpal, Advocate.
IMPORTANT POINT
Sanction for prosecution--Same is required when the Court is to take cognizance--Not required at the stage of presentation of challan.
Headnote:(A) Criminal Law--Sanction for prosecution--Same is required when the Court is to take cognizance--Not required at the stage of presentation of challan--Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 197. (Para 8)
(B) Criminal Law--Quashing of FIR--Challan presented before the Competent Court--Once challan presented in the Court, the FIR may not be quashed--|Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 482--Penal Code, 1860, Sections 467, 468, 471, 166, 167, 192, 120-IPC--Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Section 13(1) (d), 13(2). (Para 10)
(C) Criminal Law--Cognizable offence--Presentation of challan--State submitted cancellation report in compliance with the orders passed by Punjab State Human Rights Commission--Commission cannot issue any order or direction to the State--It can only make recommendations--State is at liberty to come to its own conclusion with regard to presentation of challan to prosecute the accused--|Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 173.
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 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 chal
