Karnail Singh ASI vs Punjab State Human Rights Commission etc.

Sanjay Kishan Kaul, C.J.—The petitioner while posted at Chowk G.T. Road, on 30.04.2003 on a complaint made by the complainant, registered an FIR No. 55, dated 30.04.2003 under Sections 354, 452, 356, 365, 511, 506 of the Indian Penal Code at Police Station Payal against one Lal Singh (respondent No. 5) on account of his alleged forcible entry and attempt to rape. Post investigation, the challan was filed before Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ludhiana and charges were stated to have been framed against the accused and prosecution evidence was in progress. It is case of the petitioner that in the meantime the disputes arose between the complainant and her brothers and the accused taking advantage of the same started putting pressure on the complainant. An application was filed by one Jasbir Kaur (respondent No. 6) alleging that the aforesaid FIR was registered falsely. It is case of the petitioner that this accusation was made at the behest of Lal Singh. On the said application it was found, after enquiry, that the FIR was rightly registered and Jasbir Kaur was in habit of making such allegations.

The matter did not rest at this, as now Lal Singh filed another application on 29.12.2003 on which re-investigation was directed, the conclusion of which went against the petitioner as per report dated 27.01.2004. This resulted in departmental proceedings being initiated against the petitioner.

Lal Singh and Jasbir Kaur also filed a separate complaint before the Punjab State Human Rights Commission alleging registration of false FIR. The Commission got an enquiry conducted by its own D.S.P. in which the conclusion was drawn that criminal proceedings be initiated and departmental action for major punishment be taken against the petitioner. The petitioner claims that he was never asked to join any enquiry or served any notice. However, in view of the aforesaid, local police moved before the competent Court for cancellation of F.I.R. on account of the report of the Punjab State Human Rights Commission and informed that the Commission had granted interim relief of Rs. 15,000/- and the amount be deducted from the salary of the petitioner. A supplementary challan u/s 173(8) of Cr. P.C. was thus filed.

Accused Lal Singh also filed an application before Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ludhiana seeking discharge but the Court dismissed the said application vide a detailed order dated 14.02.2005.

The present writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking quashing of the impugned orders dated 11.02.2004 and 10.02.2005 passed by the Punjab State Human Rights Commission.

In sum and substance the submission advanced is that there could not have been parallel proceedings by the Commission when the criminal trial was pending. It has also been pointed out by learned counsel for the petitioner that on the application for discharge of the accused having been rejected, he filed a Criminal Revision Petition before the Sessions Court at Ludhiana which was also decided against him and then approached the High Court by way of petition u/s 482 Cr. P.C. for quashing both orders which was also dismissed on 09.12.2005 (Annexure P-10). Not only that, the Public Prosecutor filed an application u/s 321 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for withdrawal of the case which was also dismissed by the competent Court on 25.08.2006. This order was then challenged in revision petition by the accused as well as by the State and both the revision petitions were dismissed by the Sessions Court at Ludhiana vide order dated 25.03.2009.

In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we are of the view that it was pre-mature for the Commission to have taken cognizance of the matter as no finality had been attained qua the legality of the F.I.R. Not only that, the competent Court dealing with the matter neither discharged the accused nor permitted the State to withdraw from prosecution. Thus, the competent Court found enough material to continue with the trial post framing of the charge.

We are thus of the view that the impugned orders cannot be sustained and are set-aside and the writ petition is accordingly allowed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.

We are, however, informed that the trial in FIR No. 55 dated 30.04.2003 is still pending before the Court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ludhiana and it is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that adjournments are being sought on the pretext of the present petition being pending. In our view, the present proceedings could in no way have affected the trial. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the prosecution examined two witnesses on 01.10.2003 but they have not been cross-examined till date by learned counsel for the accused.

In view of the matter being more than 10 years old, we call upon Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ludhiana to expedite and conclude the trial in the matter within a maximum period of six months from the date of communication of this order.

A copy of this order be sent expeditiously to the concerned Court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ludhiana as well as District & Sessions Judge, Ludhiana.