Criminal Misc. No.M-23617 of 2008 -1-
****
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Criminal Misc. No.M-23617 of 2008
Date of decision : 3.12.2008
Paramjit Singh .....Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and another ...Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. D. ANAND
Present: Mr. Vikas Mahsempuri, Advocate for the petitioner
Ms. Manjari Nehru, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab
Mr. I.S.Pabla, Advocate for
Mr. P.S. Sullar, Advocate for respondent no.2.
S. D. ANAND, J.
The controversy is very simple in character. The prosecution
filed a plea under Section 319 Cr.P.C. for the summoning of respondent
no.2-Gurdev Kaur to face a trial under Section 420/120-B IPC. In support
of the request, the prosecution relied upon the averments made in course
of the complaint, First Information Report and also the substantive
testimony made by the complainant before the Trial Court on 20.10.2006.
The plea came to be allowed by the learned Trial Court vide impugned
order dated 301.2007.
However, that order was invalidated by the learned Additional
Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), vide order dated 20.9.2007. In
recording that finding the learned Revisional Court placed reliance upon
the fact that respondent no.2-Gurdev Kaur had been found innocent by the
Investigating Agency. In that context, learned Revisional Court recorded
the following observations:-
Criminal Misc. No.M-23617 of 2008 -2-
****
“The interest of such like private complainants are always
subject to interest of the State which are larger. Investigating
Agency is headed by State and some sanctity of truth is
attached to State Investigating Agency established when there
is Senior Police Officer so it cannot be mechanically accepted
that every investigation is doubtful as in this case there is no
evidence to doubt separating of the chaff from grain of truth for
that the facts brought to light by Superior Officer also has to be
believed until and unless some main accused is allowed for go
scot free some ulterior motive of the police so such like mini
trial and stalling the main trial should be discouraged by the
trial court.”
The complainant has filed the present petition under Section
482 Cr.P.C. for quashment of the order dated 20.9.2007 (Annexure P-2)
passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc), Pariala.
I have heard Mr. Vikas Mahsempuri, learned counsel for the
petitioner for the petitioner, Ms. Manjari Nehru, Deputy Advocate General,
Punjab and Mr. I.S.Pabla, learned counsel for respondent no.2.
It would be apparent from a perusal of the impugned order
itself that allowance of the plea under Section 319 Cr.P.C. was based
upon the substantive testimony of the complainant which she had made at
the trial. Learned Trial Magistrate recorded a well reasoned order
indicating in the course thereof that he was allowing the said plea on the
basis of contents of the complaint, First Information Report and also
substantive testimony of the complainant at the trial. Learned Additional
Sessions Judge was not justified in discarding the well reasoned
observations made by the learned Trial Magistrate. The learned Additional
Criminal Misc. No.M-23617 of 2008 -3-
****
Sessions Judge was also not justified in placing implicit reliance upon the
finding of ‘exoneration’ recorded by the Investigating Agency in favour of
respondent no.2-Gurdev Kaur. The finding by the Investigating Agency
cannot be given priority over the finding recorded by a Judicial Court. That
is the crux of the issue.
In the light of the fore-going discussion, the petition shall stand
allowed. The order dated 20.9.2007 passed by learned Additional Sessions
Judge shall stand quashed. The order dated 30.1.2007 passed by learned
Trial Magistrate is restored.
December 03, 2008 (S. D. ANAND) Pka JUDGE