Sukhchain Singh and another vs State of Punjab and another

Augustine George Masih, J.—This petition u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been preferred by the petitioners praying for quashing of Calandra dated 27.4.2005 (Annexure P-2) filed under Sections 182 and 193 of the Indian Penal Code and order dated 5.11.2009 (Annexure P-3) vide which the application moved by the petitioners for their discharge stands dismissed and all consequential proceedings arising there from.

It is the contention of the counsel for the petitioners that FIR No.58 dated 12.12.2000 under Sections 7 and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short ''the P.C. Act'') was registered on the complaint filed by petitioner No.1 at Police Station, Vigilance Bureau, Patiala against Ashwani Kumar, J.E. After the investigation, challan was presented and thereafter charges were framed and trial proceeded with by the Court. During the proceedings before the Court, petitioners resiled from their statements leading to the acquittal of the accused Ashwani Kumar, J.E. Against the said order, no appeal has been preferred and the said judgment had attained finality. It is after the conclusion of the trial that the present proceedings have been initiated u/s 182 and 193 IPC by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance Bureau, Phase II, Patiala, on the ground that the petitioners had given wrong information to the Investigating Agency. He contends that the Investigating Agency should have initiated proceedings u/s 182 IPC against the petitioners in case they had come to a conclusion that the information supplied by them was incorrect or false, but after the trial had taken place, the present Calandra against the petitioners cannot sustain. In support of this contention, counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case of Balraj Singh vs. State of Punjab, 2007 (1) RCC 185. On this basis, he prays that the present petition may be allowed by quashing the Calandra and all consequential proceedings arising there from.

On the other hand, counsel for the respondents submits that the FIR was registered against Ashwani Kumar, J.E., on a complaint filed by petitioner No.1-Sukhchain Singh. Statements of both the petitioners were recorded during investigation and on the basis of said statements and evidence collected, challan was presented in Court leading to the trial wherein petitioners resiled from their statements resulting in the acquittal of accused-Ashwani Kumar and, therefore, proceedings against the petitioners u/s 182 and 193 IPC have been rightly initiated by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, who was the Investigating Officer and to whom the complaint was filed. Accordingly, he prays for dismissal of the present petition.

I have heard counsel for the parties and gone through the records of the case.

There is no dispute that FIR No.58 dated 12.12.2000 registered under Sections 7 and 13(2) of the P.C. Act at Police station Vigilance Bureau, Patiala, on a complaint filed by Sukhchain Singh-petitioner No.1. Challan was presented after the investigation and thereafter charges were framed leading to the trial where the petitioners resiled from their statements which ended in acquittal of the accused-Ashwani Kumar. The said judgment had attained finality as no appeal has been preferred against it by the prosecution.

The question, therefore, for consideration of this Court is whether the present proceedings could be initiated by the Deputy Superintendent of Police under Sections 182 and 193 IPC after the conclusion of the trial or at the stage when the investigation was on. The complaint as submitted by petitioner No.1 was not found to be incorrect or false as the investigating agency had found substance in the same and, therefore, had presented the challan. Not only this, even charges were framed against accused Ashwani Kumar and it is during the trial that the petitioners resiled from the statements given to the police during the investigation. The stage at which the Investigating Agency could have initiated proceedings against the petitioners would be, if, on investigation, the information supplied was found to be incorrect or false and not at a stage when the trial has been concluded. This Court while considering similar facts in Balraj Singh''s case (supra), in para 10 has held as follows:-

After hearing learned counsel for both the sides and having gone through the facts of the case, in my view the Calendra u/s 182 IPC, the order Annexure P-6 and all subsequent proceedings initiated against the petitioner deserve to be quashed for a very simple reason that after a full fledged trial, the petitioner could not be booked for giving false information to the police as punishable u/s 182 IPC. The prosecution agency could initiate the proceedings against the petitioner for the said offence only during the investigation of the case finding that the information supplied by the petitioner was false but not after submitting of challan u/s 173 Cr.P.C. against the accused to face trial. In the case in hand, the position, is rather better as during the trial, the petitioner was declared hostile by the Public Prosecutor and therefore, if his substantive statement was to be dubbed as false evidence, he could, at the most, be booked for the offence punishable u/s 193 or 194 IPC that too after giving of verdict against him by the trial Court.

In view of the above, the present petition is allowed; Calandra dated 27.4.2005 (Annexure P-2) filed under Sections 182 and 193 IPC and all consequential proceedings arising there from are hereby quashed.