214

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

1.

CRR No.1610 of 2012 (O&M)

Gian Singh

...Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab and another

...Respondents

2.

CRM No.M-6782 of 2012

Brij Mohan Chadha and another

...Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab and another

...Respondents

3.

CRM No.M-11238 of 2012

Sumit Kumar and another

...Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab and others

...Respondents

Date of decision: July 21, 2014

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJIT SINGH

Present:

Mr.A.D.S.Jattana, Advocate

for the petitioner (in CRR No.1610 of 2012).

Mr.V.K.Jindal, Advocate

for the petitioners (in CRM No.M-6782 of 2012).

Mr.Parveen K.Kataria, Advocate

for the petitioners (in CRM No.M-11238 of 2012).

Mr.V.P.S.Sidhu, Asstt. Advocate General, Punjab

for the respondent-State.

Mr.Aman Chaudhary, Advocate

for respondent No.3 (in CRM No.M-11238 of 2012)

****

INDERJIT SINGH, J.

This order shall dispose of above mentioned three

VINEET GULATI

2014.08.07 10:19

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

Chandigarh

CRR No.1610 of 2012

-2-

petitions.

CRR No.1610 of 2012 has been filed by petitioner Gian

Singh against State of Punjab and DSP Moga respondents under

Section 401 Cr.P.C. challenging the order dated 04.02.2012 passed

by learned Special Judge-cum-Addl. Sessions Judge, Moga framing

the charge against the petitioner in FIR No.62 dated 08.12.2006.

CRM No.M-6782 of 2012 has been filed by petitioners Brij

Mohan Chadha and Barish Chander against State of Punjab and DSP

Moga, respondents and CRM No.M-11238 of 2012 has been filed by

petitioners Sumit Kumar and Nishant Kumar against State of Punjab,

DSP, Vigilance Bureau, Moga and Managing Director, PUNSUP under

Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR No.62 dated 08.12.2006,

registered at Police Station Vigilance Bureau, Ferozepur Range under

Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 477-A and 120-B IPC and under

Section 13(1)(c)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of

Corruption Act, 1988 and all consequential proceedings.

The facts are being taken from CRR No.1610 of 2012.

It is mainly stated in the petition that order dated

04.02.2012 passed by Special Judge-cum-Addl. Sessions Judge,

Moga framing the charge against the petitioner in FIR No.62 dated

08.12.2006 under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 477-A, 120-B

IPC and under Section 13(1)(c)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, despite the fact that sanction to

prosecute the petitioner has been denied by a lengthy speaking order,

is against the cardinal principle of justice and the impugned order is

VINEET GULATI

2014.08.07 10:19

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

Chandigarh

CRR No.1610 of 2012

-3-

bad in law.

It is further stated that a false FIR was registered and the

raiding party did not listen to the pleas of the officials including the

petitioner to check the adjoining godown for the remaining paddy. The

police with malafide intent registered the said FIR and did not pay

heed to the fact that a letter was immediately written by the higher

officials stating that there was no shortage of paddy bags or stored

paddy but despite the same not only FIR was registered against

advice but police charge sheet has also been filed. On the above

factual matter, the competent authority refused sanction.

Notice of motion was issued in each case and respondents

appeared through their respective counsel and contested the petition.

I have gone through the record and have heard learned

counsel for the parties as well as learned State counsel.

From the record, I find that Annexure P-4 is the order

passed by Additional Secretary Punjab Govt., Food Civil Supply and

Consumer Affairs Department in which it is held as under:-

“XXX

XX

XX

XXX

In the aforementioned facts and circumstances it cannot be

believed that the employees of Food and Supply Department

Sh.Brij Mohan Chadha and other can be held guilty in the Court

of Law on some valid ground