Crl. Misc. No. M-38369 of 2007 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
Crl. Misc. No. M-38369 of 2007 (O&M)
Date of Decision : August 19, 2009
Rajwati Rana wife of Sh. Jagpal Singh Rana
.... Petitioner
Vs.
Union Territory, Chandigarh
.... Respondent
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH
* * *
Present : Mr. Sunil Chadha, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Rajiv Sharma, Standing Counsel, U.T. Chandigarh.
* * *
AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (ORAL)
Reply on behalf of the respondent has been filed in the Court,
wherein the factum, as has been asserted by the counsel for the petitioner,
has not been disputed. The same is taken on record.
Counsel for the petitioner contends that there was one FIR
No. 350 dated 25.07.2003 (Annexure P-1) registered at Police Station
Sector-39, Chandigarh, under Section 420 IPC. The said FIR was got
registered on a complaint by 17 complainants. He further submits that after
the investigation of the case, four different challans have been presented
Crl. Misc. No. M-38369 of 2007 2
by the prosecuting agency against the petitioner. He submits that four
challans, which have been presented, are for the same offence and even
the nature of the offence is the same. He further contends that when all
the complainants had come together and filed a common complaint against
the petitioner, which resulted in registration of the FIR in question, there
cannot be separate challans arising out of the same FIR when the offence
is one and the nature and commission thereof is also of similar nature. He,
on this basis, contends that the presentation of four challans for the same
offence arising out of the same FIR, would be abuse of process of Court as
the petitioner will have to face four different trials, which would not be
permissible in law.
Counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, submits that in
the light of the provisions of Section 219 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, the prosecution has proceeded to club three offences of the
same kind committed by the petitioner and has proceeded to file four
challans, as only 12 complainants have come forth during investigation to
depose against the petitioner out of the total 17 complainants in one
common complaint submitted by them. Keeping that in view, the present
four challans have been filed. He, however submits that the factual aspect,
as has been asserted by the counsel for the petitioner, is not in dispute that
the offence is one and has been committed in furtherance to and with a
common object for the same purpose, for which the allegations have been
made against him.
I have heard the counsel for the parties and have gone
through the records of the case.
Sections 218, 219 and 220 of the Code of Criminal Procedure
would be the relevant provisions in the present case. A perusal of the
same would show that there is no bar as such for holding a single trial,
Crl. Misc. No. M-38369 of 2007 3
even in cases where there is more than one offence committed in one
series of acts. All these allegations, which have been made in the
complaint, are a part of the complaint, although by different persons and
they are alleging cheating by the petitioner, but for the same purpose and
intention and for the same cause, they have come together to file the FIR.
The provisions of Section 220 Cr.P.C. makes it apparent that if, in one
series of acts so connected together as to form the same transaction, more
offences than one are committed by the same person, he may be charged
with, and tried at one trial for, every such offence. This apart, the provision,
which has been relied upon by the prosecution i.e. Section 219 Cr.P.C. for
submitting four different challans, the said provision has been totally
misread by the prosecution. That provision only relates to different
offences having been committed during the period of one year, which can
be clubbed together in a single trial. That being not the position in the
present case, the contention, as raised by the respondent, cannot be
accepted.
In view of the above, the present petition is allowed.
A direction is issued that a single trial be held in respect of four
different challans, which have been presented by the prosecuting agency
against the petitioner as there was only one FIR registered against the
petitioner and that too on a single complaint.
August 19, 2009 (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH ) pj JUDGE