JUDGMENT

Aman Chaudhary, J.

Present petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing of the order dated 05.02.2016 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Kurukshetra whereby the complaint No.978 of 2013, dated 12.07.2011 filed by the petitioner under Sections 192 , 193, 196, 199, 200, 211, 219, 500, 120-B of IPC and Sections 3(1)(vii)(ix)(x), 3(2)(ii)(vii) of Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 was dismissed, and judgment dated 26.02.2018 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Kurukshetra vide which the revision petition filed by the petitioner has been dismissed.

2. Briefly put, the facts of the present case are that when the petitioner was posted as Station House Officer, Sadar Thanesar, FIR No.344 dated 10.10.2006 was registered under Sections 279 and 304A IPC. After investigation, an untrace report was submitted, which was accepted by the trial Court on 05.05.2010. In the meantime, on an application filed by the father of deceased Pawan Kumar, an enquiry was conducted by respondent No.2-SI Tejinder Kumar, State Vigilance Bureau Unit, Kurukshetra. The petitioner alleged that he was humiliated by the said officer in his office in the presence of other officials. Respondent No.3 also gave false statement and the concerned police officials, who were on duty on 10.10.2006 and 11.10.2006, were not joined in the enquiry. In this way, respondent No.2 instituted false, malicious criminal proceedings intentionally to humiliate, insult and defame the petitioner as also submitted false, frivolous and fabricated documents based report, upon which, FIR no.17 dated 22.05.2008 under Sections 201 and 120B IPC was registered against the petitioner, ASI Shingara Ram and HC Subhash Chand. The said FIR was investigated by the State Vigilance Bureau and the allegations levelled therein were found to be false and cancellation report was submitted and accepted by learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Kurukshetra vide order dated 29.01.2011. In the joint departmental enquiry also they were exonerated of the charge. The instant complaint was filed against respondent Nos. 2 and 3, on the allegations that they malafidely and willfully got a false FIR registered against him and others to harm and damage their reputation.

3. The preliminary evidence was led and accused-respondent Nos.2 and 3 were ordered to be summoned for the commission of offence punishable under Sections 193 , 196, 199, 200, 211, 219, 500 and 120B IPC vide order dated 23.05.2012 passed by Ms. Kavita Kamboj, learned JMIC, Kurukshetra.

4. In order to prove the case, the complainant in pre-charge evidence examined as many as 11 witnesses. Thereafter, closed his pre-charge evidence vide separate statement recorded on 05.12.2015. After evaluation of the evidence on record, the trial Court discharged the accused vide order dated 05.02.2016. The said order was challenged by the petitioner by way of filing a revision, which was also dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge vide order dated 26.02.2018.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Courts below have committed grave error while acquitted the accused-respondents by ignoring the evidence led by the petitioner. SI Tejinder Singh knew that the petitioner was not the investigating officer of the case. Still further, the investigation conducted by the concerned officials was correct, despite that a wrong declaration was made of the same being false. All the witnesses examined by the petitioner during pre-charge evidence, had categorically admitted the acts and conduct of the accused-respondents and their malafide intention to humiliate the