Dismissed

Jagjit Singh v. State of Punjab

Punjab & Haryana HC18 May 2012CRM-M/14560/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed a petition under Section 482 CrPC seeking quashment of an FIR alleging corruption and cheating. The court held that the allegations prima facie disclosed cognizable offences where the petitioner was directly involved in forging documents and accepting bribes.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner's prayer to quash the FIR was dismissed.

Jagjit Singh Vs State of Punjab — Corruption | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

CRM No. M-14560 of 2010 -1-

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

Criminal Misc. No. M-14560 of 2010 Date of Decision:- 18.5.2012

¶4

Jagjit Singh ...Petitioner

¶5

Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent

¶6

CORAM:HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR

¶7

Present:Mr.Vishal Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶8

Mr.Jasdev Singh Brar, AAG Punjab for the respondent. Mehinder Singh Sullar, J . (Oral)

¶9

Tersely, the facts and material, culminating in the commencement, relevant for the limited purpose of deciding the core controversy, involved in the instant petition and emanating from the record, are that, the Vigilance Department of Punjab received the information from reliable source that petitioner Jagjit Singh, Clerk and his other co-accused Raman Kumar, SO, Gurmukh Singh and Gian Singh etc. were preparing and issuing the false documents/registration certificates (for short “the RCs”) etc. after accepting the illegal gratification. They were stated to have issued fake registration Nos.PB-31-C-3487, PB-31-C-3517 to the oil tankers, bearing registration Nos.HRL-7187 & HR-46-5757 and PB-31-C6163 to the truck, bearing No.HNR-5482 respectively, by using the fabricated and forged documents/NOC & verification etc. The matter was investigated and the Vigilance Department unearthed a big scam in this respect.

¶10

Levelling a variety of allegations and narrating the sequence of events in detail in the final police report, in all, according to the prosecution that the petitioner and his other co-accused have prepared, fabricated and issued the forged RCs/NOC/verifications and illegally sold the same as genuine to the owners/drivers of the oil tankers/trucks, after accepting the illegal gratification

¶11

CRM No. M-14560 of 2010 -2-

¶12

from them. In the background of these allegations and in the wake of inquiry, a criminal case was registered against petitioner Jagjit Singh and his other coaccused, by means of FIR No.23 dated 29.7.2005 (Annexure P1), on accusation of having committed the offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC and Sections 13(1)(d) & (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter to be referred as “the PC Act”) by the police of Police Station Vigilance Bureau, Bathinda.

¶13

Instead of submitting to the jurisdiction of the trial Court, the petitioner straightway jumped to file the present petition to quash the impugned FIR (Annexure P1), invoking the provisions of Section 482 Cr.PC.

¶14

The case set up by the petitioner, in brief in so far as relevant, was that he has been falsely implicated by the police as he was not posted at the relevant time on the particular seat in the office of District Transport Officer (for brevity “the DTO”), Mansa. It was claimed that before according sanction against the petitioner, the State Transport Commissioner (in short “the STC”) had written a letter (Annexure P5) to Senior Superintendent of Police, Vigilance Bureau to clarify that he (petitioner) was not posted in the office of DTO, Mansa when the RCs and others documents, in respect of the vehicles in question were issued. No sanction has been accorded against him till today. He has already retired from service on 30.11.2008 and all his retiral benefits have not been released to him on account of pendency of this case. The continuation of criminal proceedings was stated to be sheer misuse and abuse of process of law, as no pointed offences are made out against him. On the strength of aforesaid grounds, the petitioner sought to quash the impugned FIR (Annexure P1) qua him in the manner depicted hereinbefore.

¶15

The respondent-State of Punjab refuted the prayer of petitioner and filed the reply, by way of affidavit of Davinder Singh Brar, DSP, Vigilance

¶16

CRM No. M-14560 of 2010 -3-

¶17

Bureau, inter-alia pleading certain preliminary objections of, maintainability of the petition, cause of action, locus standi of petitioner and objection of concealment and misrepresentation of the facts. The prosecution claimed that the instant case was registered by the Vigilance Department on the basis of information received from reliable source against the petitioner and his other co-accused for preparing the false RCs/NOC and verifications and illegally issued as genuine registration Nos.PB-31-C-3487 & PB-31-C-3517 to the owners/drivers of oil tankers, bearing registration Nos.HRL-7187 and HR-46-5757 respectively by using the fabricated and forged documents. It has been specifically claimed that during the investigation, it revealed that the present petitioner was directly involved in issuance of registration No.PB-31-C-6163 to truck bearing Registration No.HNR5482, by forging the documents and for this purpose, he has received the heavy amount of illegal gratification from the owner of the vehicle, vide certificate dated 8.12.2002 (Annexure R-1/T), which bears his (petitioner's) signatures. His involvement was duly intimated/explained to the office of STC, who thereafter carried out further proceedings to prosecute him, vide letter, bearing No.13672 dated 29.4.2010., wherein it was mentioned that since the petitioner had retired from the service w.e.f. 30.11.2008, so, there is no need to get sanction to prosecute him.

¶18

Instead of reproducing the entire contents of the reply and in order to avoid the repetition of facts, suffice it to say that the respondent has specifically, inter-alia claimed that the petitioner issued registration No.PB-31-C-6163 to truck bearing Registration No.HNR-5482 and thus he has committed the indicated offences. The respondent has reiterated all the allegations as contained in the final police report, in terms of Section 173 Cr.PC. However, it will not be out of place to mention here that the State has stoutly denied all other allegations contained in the main petition and prayed for its dismissal. That is how I am seized of the matter.

¶19

CRM No. M-14560 of 2010 -4-

¶20

At the very outset, what cannot possibly be disputed here is that the Hon'ble Apex Court has authoritatively held, in a celebrated judgment in case State of Haryana and others v. Ch.Bhajan Lal and others, AIR 1992 Supreme Court 604, which was again reiterated in case Som Mittal v. Government of Karnataka 2008(2) R.C.R.(Criminal) 92, that the criminal prosecution can only be quashed in rarest of rare case at the initial stage as per the following conditions:-

¶21

(i) Where the allegations made in the First Information Report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused.

¶22

(ii) Where the allegations in the First Information Report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under S.156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of S.155(2) of the Code.

¶23

(iii)Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused.

¶24

(iv) Where, the allegations in the F.I.R. do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under S.155(2) of the Code.

¶25

(v) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.

¶26

(vi) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party.

¶27

(vii) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.”

¶28

Not only that, again the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case Jeffery J.Diermeier & Anr. v. State of West Bengal & Anr. 2010(3) R.C.R.(Criminal) 183,

¶29

having interpreted the scope of section 482 Cr.PC, has ruled (para 16) as under:-

¶30

“16. Before addressing the contentions advanced on behalf of the parties, it will be useful to notice the scope and ambit of inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 of the Code. The Section itself envisages three circumstances under which the inherent jurisdiction may be exercised, namely, (i) to give effect

¶31

CRM No. M-14560 of 2010 -5-

¶32

to an order under the Code; (ii) to prevent abuse of process of Court; and (iii) to otherwise secure the ends of justice. Nevertheless, it is neither possible nor desirable to lay down any inflexible rule which would govern the exercise of inherent jurisdiction of the Court. Undoubtedly, the power possessed by the High Court under the said provision is very wide but is not unlimited. It has to be exercised sparingly, carefully and cautiously, ex debito justitiae to do real and substantial justice for which alone the court exists. It needs little emphasis that the inherent jurisdiction does not confer an arbitrary power on the High Court to act according to whim or caprice. The power exists to prevent abuse of authority and not to produce injustice.”

¶33

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, going through the legal position and material on record with their valuable assistance and after deep consideration over the entire matter, to my mind, there is no merit in the instant petition in this context.

¶34

Ex facie the argument of learned counsel that as the petitioner was not posted at the relevant time in the office of DTO Mansa when the fabricated documents were prepared and issued as genuine by his other co-accused in respect of vehicles mentioned in the FIR, therefore, no offence is made out and he has been falsely implicated, is not only devoid of merit but misplaced as well.

¶35

As is evident from the record that, in the wake of information received from reliable source, the Vigilance Department of State of Punjab has unearthed a big scandal of preparing the forged documents by the accused and illegally issued the same as genuine to the vehicle owners after accepting the hefty illegal gratification. During the course of investigation, the police found the direct involvement of the petitioner in the commission of the offences in question. Assuming for the sake of argument (though not admitted) that he was not posted in the office of DTO Mansa at the time of issuance of registration Nos.PB-31-C-3487 and PB-31-C-3517 to the oil tankers bearing registration Nos.HRL-7187 and HR46-5757 (mentioned in the FIR), but it is not a matter of dispute that the petitioner was directly involved in issuance of fake/fabricated registration Nos.PB-31-C-

¶36

CRM No. M-14560 of 2010 -6-

¶37

6163 to truck bearing No.HNR-5482 by forging the documents, by means of RC (Annexure R1/T). In pursuance of the letter (Annexure P5) from the office of STC, the SSP Vigilance has informed him with regard to the direct involvement of the petitioner for preparing and forging the fake documents/RCs/NOC etc. in respect of vehicle No.PB-31-C-6163 assigned to truck, bearing No.HNR-5482. According to the prosecution, thereafter, the STC carried out further proceedings and informed the Vigilance Department, by virtue of letter bearing No.13672 dated 29.4.2010 that since the petitioner has already retired from the service w.e.f. 30.11.2008, so, there is no need to obtain sanction for prosecuting him. Subsequently, he was prosecuted. Moreover, as he was posted as Junior Assistant at the relevant time, therefore, no previous sanction for prosecuting him was even essential under Section 19 of the PC Act, particularly when he has already retired from service, in view of the law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in cases State of Kerala v. Padmanabhan Nair AIR 1999 SC 2405 and Parkash Singh Badal and another v. State of Punjab and others (2007) 1 SCC 1. Meaning thereby, the complicity of the petitioner is duly prima facie proved and he is directly involved in the commission of indicated offences in the manner described hereinabove. 12. The next celebrated contention of learned counsel that the allegations levelled against the petitioner are vague, there is no cogent evidence on record against him and he has been falsely implicated, again lacks merit. All such questions, as to how many fake RCs/NOC and verifications were issued by the petitioner to the owners of the vehicles with the connivance of his co-accused, whether there is no cogent evidence on record against him or he has been falsely implicated, whether he was posted at the entire relevant time in the office of DTO, Mansa or not, how, in what manner, he is involved in the crime or otherwise, all essential ingredients of the offences in question are complete or not and all other such submissions, relatable to the appreciation of evidence, as now sought to be

¶38

CRM No. M-14560 of 2010 -7-

¶39

urged on his behalf, would be the moot points to be decided during the course of trial by the trial Court. If all such points, which require determination by the trial Court, are to be decided by this Court in the garb of petition under section 482 Cr.PC, then the sanctity of the trial would pale into insignificance and amount to nullify the statutory procedure of trial as contemplated under the Code of Criminal Procedure, which is not legally permissible.

¶40

Moreover, it is now well settled principle of law that the High Court should not ordinarily embark upon an inquiry whether the evidence in question is reliable or not or whether on a reasonable appreciation of it the accusation would not be sustained, are the functions of the trial Judge to do so. The High Court must be careful to see that its decision in exercise of its power is based on sound principles. The inherent power should not be exercised to stifle a legitimate prosecution. Reliance in this connection can be placed upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case U.P.Pollution Control Board v. Dr.Bhupendra Kumar Modi and another (2009) 2 SCC 147 .

¶41

Therefore, the Bench mark set out in the aforesaid judgments and essential ingredients for quashing the impugned FIR (Annexure P1) at this initial stage are totally lacking in this case. Hence, the contrary arguments of learned counsel for petitioner “stricto sensu” deserve to be and are hereby repelled under the present set of circumstances as the ratio of law laid down in the indicated judgments “mutatis mutandis” is applicable to the facts of the present case and is the complete answer to the problem in hand.

¶42

No other legal point, worth consideration, has either been urged or pressed by the learned counsel for the parties.

¶43

In the light of aforesaid reasons and without commenting further anything on merits, lest it may prejudice the case of either side during the course of trial of the main case, as there is no merit, therefore, the instant petition is hereby

¶44

CRM No. M-14560 of 2010

¶45

dismissed as such.

¶46

Needless to mention that nothing observed, here-in-above, would reflect, in any manner, on merits during the trial of the main case, as the same has been so recorded for a limited purpose of deciding the present petition in this

¶47

relevant connection.

¶48

18.5.2012 (Mehinder Singh Sullar) AS Judge

¶49

Whether to be referred to reporter? Yes /No

Jagjit Singh v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jagjit 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

Jito Bai Vs State of Punjab

Major Singh Vs State of Punjab and Anr.

Ghanshyam and Ors. Vs Balwant Singh and Anr.

Baljeet Singh Vs State of Punjab

Gian Singh Vs State of Punjab and Anr.

Ramandeep Kaur and Ors. Vs Shavinder Singh Gill