The court affirmed that supplementary investigations can designate new accused based on ongoing inquiries, and protections against self-incrimination under Article 20(3) apply only after formal accusation.

JUDGMENT :

JASJIT SINGH BEDI, J.

1. The prayer in the present petition under Section 528 of BNSS , 2023 is for quashing of the FIR No.0016 dated 18.01.2017 initially registered under Sections 120-B , 406, 420, 506 (subsequently added Sections 201 & 109 IPC ) at Police Station Ellenabad, District Sirsa (Annexure P-1), the final Report No.1B dated 06.03.2025 (Annexure P-8) qua the petitioner and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner who was the initial complainant got registered an FIR No.0016 dated 18.01.2017 under Sections 120-B , 406, 420, 506 (subsequently added Sections 201 & 109 IPC ) at Police Station Ellenabad, District Sirsa against six accused persons alleging that the accused in connivance with each other had fraudulently induced the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.42,00,000/- approximately under the false pretext of securing his son Amritpal Singh a job as an Assistant Sub-Inspector in the Chandigarh Police with the aid of unnamed politicians and senior police officials. Later, when the son of the complainant was not provided employment as promised, he sought the return of the same. The accused repaid a sum of Rs.2 lakhs and sought time to repay the remaining amount. However, they did not do so and to the contrary, threatened him with false implication in cases. The copy of the FIR No.0016 dated 18.01.2017 under Sections 120-B , 406, 420, 506 (subsequently added Sections 201 & 109 IPC ) Police Station Ellenabad, District Sirsa is attached as Annexure P-1 to the petition.

3. The report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. was presented against accused Navraj and Azadwinder Singh while stating that accused Kashmir Kaur, Nachhattar Singh, Gurbhej Singh and Balvir Singh were yet to be arrested. The copy of the first challan dated 28.07.2017 is attached as Annexure P-2 to the petition.

4. Navraj Singh and Azadwinder Singh approached this Court seeking grant of regular bail vide CRM-M-39182-2017 titled as Navraj Singh & another Vs. State of Haryana. This Court vide order dated 08.02.2018 observed as under:-

“Even if the version of the complainant is taken to be as gospal truth, he would be seen as a party to the scam and would be required to be nominated as an accused as well.

Let an affidavit of the Superintendent of Police, Sirsa be filed in response to the observations made by this Court in this order.”

The copy of the order dated 08.02.2018 is attached as Annexure P-3 to the petition.

5. In compliance of the aforementioned order, the Superintendent of Police, Sirsa filed an affidavit stating before this Court that an application had been moved before the Trial Court seeking permission for re-investigation. The copy of the order passed on 07.03.2018 containing the reference to the affidavit of the S.P., Sirsa is annexed as Annexure P-4 to the petition.

6. Subsequent thereto, the application seeking further investigation/re-investigation was dismissed by the SDJM, Ellenabad vide order dated 07.08.2019. The copy of the said order is annexed as Annexure P-5 to the petition.

7. It may be pertinent to mention here that the application for re- investigation filed by the Investigating Agency was misconceived and what was required to be filed was an application for further investigation.

8. Accused Navraj Singh and Azadwinder Singh filed a petition in this Court bearing CRM-M-44269-2022 challenging the order dated 07.08.2019 and also sought an inquiry into the role of the petitioner/complainant in the alleged incident. The said petition was disposed of with the liberty to the petitioners to file a fresh petition