The investigating officer has discretion in determining charges and is not mandated to follow the public prosecutor's recommendations, validating the addition of offences in the challan report.

JUDGMENT :

Mrs. Manisha Batra, J.:- The instant petition has been filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure (for short ‘Code’) seeking quashing of challan report filed under Section 173(2) of the Code and proceedings having emanated therefrom in case arising out of FIR No. 90 dated 26.04.2023 initially registered under Sections 323, 341 and 506 read with Section 34 of IPC (offences under Sections 451 and 452 of IPC having been added later on), at Police Station Sadar Kharar, District SAS Nagar.

2. Brief facts of the case relevant for the purpose of disposal of this petition are that the aforementioned FIR was registered on the basis of statement got recorded by the complainant Jaivinder Singh Negi on 26.04.2023 alleging therein that he was engaged in the business of property management and was caretaker of two showrooms existing in World One High Street Building, at Landran. A gym under the name of ‘old school’ was built on the top floor of showrooms No. 9 and 10 which were taken care of by the complainant. He alleged that on 03.04.2023, he was present in the gym for regular maintenance checking, when the present petitioners entered inside the same after hatching some conspiracy and caught hold of him. They opened an attack upon him and extended beatings to him and also criminally intimidated him. He was rescued by other persons present in the gym. After registration of FIR under Section 323, 341 and 506 read with Section 34 of IPC, the petitioners were arrested and were extended benefit of bail since the offences for which they had been booked were bailable. During the course of investigation, offence under Section 451 of IPC was added and they were released on bail for that offence also. After completion of investigation, challan report under Section 173 of Cr.P.C. was prepared. As per the allegations, this report was checked by the District Attorney and as per the recommendation made by him, offence under Section 452 of IPC was added, challan report was amended accordingly and then was presented to the concerned Court. The petitioners aggrieved by the addition of offence punishable under Section 452 of IPC in the challan report, have sought quashing of the challan report and all the proceedings having arisen therefrom.

3. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioners that after conducting a detailed investigation, the investigating agency had prepared challan report under Sections 323, 341, 451 and 506 read with Section 34 of IPC as against the petitioners. The action of respondent No. 3 i.e. SHO of concerned Police Station of adding offence under Section 452 of IPC was not valid as he had done so simply on the recommendation of the District Attorney who himself had no authority to direct or recommend addition of such offence or for that matter any other offence to the investigating agency. It is argued that the conducting of investigation and presentation of challan was prerogative of the investigating agency and the District Attorney/ public prosecutor had no locus standi whatsoever for giving direction for adding some particular offence. With these broad submissions, it is urged that the challan report is liable to be quashed to the extent to which offence under Section 452 of IPC has been added. To fortify his arguments, learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance upon authorities cited as R.Sarla Vs. TS. Telu and others, 2000(2) RCR (Criminal) 637, Niyamvedi Vs. Raman Srivastava, 1995(1) RCR (Criminal) 612, State of Bihar Vs. J.A.C. Saldanna 1980 (1) SCC 554, S.N. Sharma Vs. Bipen Kumar Tiwari (1970) 3 S.C.R. 946 and Abhinandan Jha Vs. Dinesh Mishra [1967] 3 S.CR. 668.

4. The respondents filed a joint reply/status report submitting therein that initially a case under Section 323, 341 and 506 read with Section 34 of IPC was registered against the petitioners. During the course of investigation, offence under Section 451 of IPC was made out and as per the recommendation made by DSP, SBCI, who ha