Allowed

Avtar Singh v. State of Punjab

Punjab & Haryana HC15 May 2009CRM-M/17259/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner filed a petition under Section 482 CrPC to quash an FIR under Section 409 IPC alleging non-handover of files. Court allowed the petition as petitioner was exonerated in departmental proceedings on identical charges, holding further criminal proceedings would be an abuse of process.

What did the court decide?

FIR No. 96 dated 5.4.2008 under Section 409 IPC and all subsequent proceedings were quashed.

Avtar Singh Vs State of Punjab — Cheating and Forgery | Punjab & Haryana HC (2009)

¶1

Criminal Misc. No.M-17259 of 2008

¶2

¶3

In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh

¶4

Criminal Misc. No.M-17259 of 2008 Date of decision: 15.5.2009

Avtar Singh

......Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab

.......Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA

¶11

Present: Mr.B.S.Jaswal, Advocate, for the petitioner.

¶12

Mr.Aman Deep Singh Rai, AAG, Punjab. ****

¶13

SABINA, J.

¶14

This petition has been filed by Avtar Singh under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (“Cr.P.C. for short) for quashing of FIR No. 96 dated 5.4.2008, under Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code (“IPC” for short), registered at Police Station City Abohar.

¶15

The allegations levelled against the petitioner as per the FIR are that while he remained posted in Police Station, City Abohar, he did not hand over the charge of following files:-

¶16

“1. Case No.228 dated 2.8.2005 under Section 420, 406, 34 IPC, Police Station City Abohar. 2. Case No.346 dated 18.11.2005 under Section 498-A, 32 IPC, Police Station

¶17

Criminal Misc. No.M-17259 of 2008

¶18

¶19

City Abohar. 3. Case No.364 dated 8.12.2005 under Section 379 IPC, Police Station City Abohar. 4. Case No.381 dated 21.12.2006 under Section 379 IPC, Police Station City Abohar 5. Case No.43 dated 19.2.2007 under Section 318 IPC, Police Station City Abohar”

¶20

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that with regard to the same allegations, departmental inquiry was conducted against the petitioner and in the said inquiry, he was exonerated of the charges framed against him.

¶21

A perusal of order dated 13.12.2007 (Annexure P-12) passed by Senior Superintendent of Police, Ferozepur reveals that departmental inquiry was held against the petitioner and during the inquiry he was placed under suspension. After completing the inquiry, the Inquiry Officer gave his report and exonerated the petitioner from all the charges levelled against him. Agreeing with the final report of the Inquiry Officer, the departmental proceedings were filed by office order dated 8.12.2007. For the same allegations, FIR in question was registered against the petitioner on 5.4.2008, although he had already been exonerated of the charges framed against him in the departmental inquiry. The fact that the petitioner has been exonerated in the departmental proceedings with regard to the same allegations has not been disputed by the learned State counsel, who is assisted by ASI Puran Singh. Thus, continuation of criminal proceedings will be nothing but an abuse of

¶22

Criminal Misc. No.M-17259 of 2008

¶23

¶24

process of law.

¶25

It has been held by the Apex Court in P.S.Rajya vs State of Bihar (1996) 9 Supreme Court Cases 1 that at the outset we may point out that the learned counsel for the respondent could not but accept the position that the standard of proof required to establish the guilt in a criminal case is far higher than the standard of proof required to establish the guilt in the departmental proceedings. He also accepted that in the present case, the charge in the departmental proceedings and in the criminal proceedings is one and the same. He did not dispute the findings rendered in the departmental proceedings and the ultimate result of it. On these premises, if we proceed further then there is no difficulty in accepting the case of the appellant. For if the charge which is identical could not be established in a departmental proceedings and in view of the admitted discrepancies in the reports submitted by the valuers one wonders what is there further to proceed against the appellant in criminal proceedings.

¶26

Accordingly, this petition is allowed. FIR No. 96 dated 5.4.2008, under Section 409 IPC, registered at Police Station City Abohar. and all the subsequent proceedings are quashed

¶27

(SABINA) JUDGE

¶28

May 15, 2009 anita

Avtar Singh v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Avtar Singh v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Parveen Sharma and Ors. Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Vishal Walia Vs Ut of Chandigarh and Anr.

Rajesh Kumar and Anr. Vs State of Punjab and Anr.

Ram Kishan Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Sarika Kumari & Anr. Vs State of Haryana & Ors.

Priyanka Rani & Anr. Vs State of Haryana & Ors.