Gurraj Singh vs State of Punjab

Mohinder Pal, J.—F.I.R. No. 157 dated 23.9.2002 u/s 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as `the

Act'') was registered at Police Station City Muktsar against the petitioner, who is a Head Constable in the Punjab Police. During investigation, the

allegations against the petitioner were found false and, accordingly, cancellation report dated 27.6.2003 was submitted. The cancellation report,

after notice to complainant Balwinder Singh, who disagreed with the same, was not accepted and the trial Judge vide order dated 10.4.2004

(Annexure P-3) ordered reinvestigation in the case. The matter was reinvestigated and again cancellation report was submitted. The trial judge

again disagreed with the cancellation report vide order dated 6.12.2004 (Annexure P-4) and ordered the police to reinvestigate the matter with a

further direction to join complainant Balwinder Singh in the investigation. Again, the police submitted cancellation report and the trial Judge third

time sent back the matter to the quarters concerned for reinvestigation. The same process was adopted by the trial Judge vide order dated

13.9.2008 (Annexure P-6) when the police submitted cancellation report for the fourth time. Hence this petition by the petitioner u/s 482 of the

Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as `the Code'').

I have heard Mr. R.K. Girdhar, Advocate, appearing for the petitioner and Mrs. Rajni Gupta, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, appearing for

the State and have gone through the records of the case.

A perusal of the instant F.I.R. (Annexure P1) reveals that general allegations, such as, the petitioner used to collect money from gamblers; that

the petitioner was harassing the general public; and that two sons of the petitioner had purchased motor-cycles from the money earned by the

petitioner by way of indulging in corruption and they (sons of the petitioner) used to wander here and here in front of the schools and colleges to

harass girls. The allegations against the petitioner were not found true during consecutive investigations, as noticed above, and opinion formed by

the Investigating Agency was that this case was based on false allegations made by those persons who were involved in illegal activities.

In the case of R. Sarala v. T.S. Velu and others, 2000 (2) RCR 637 Mad, where the Madras High Court had directed the Investigating Officer

to submit the amended charge-sheet in accordance with the opinion of the Public Prosecutor, it was observed by a Division Bench of the Hon''ble

Supreme Court that the High Court had committed an illegality in directing the final report to be taken back and to file a fresh report incorporating

the opinion of the Public Prosecutor. For this opinion, support was derived from a three- Judge Bench of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in H.N.

Rishbud and Inder Singh Vs. The State of Delhi, wherein, after delineating the different steps in investigation as contemplated in the Code, it was

pointed out that the formation of opinion, whether or not there is a case to place the accused on trial should be that of the officer in charge of the

Police Station and none else. Only superior police officers are entitled to supervise the investigation.

Keeping in view the above observations of the Apex Court, the trial Court ought not have time and again directed the police to reinvestigate the

matter and, in a way, to direct the police to form a particular opinion while submitting the report u/s 173 of the Code.

In view of the above, this petition is allowed and the F.I.R. in question as well as all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are quashed.