Disposed

Inderjit Singh v. State of Punjab & Anr.

Punjab & Haryana HC16 Nov 2023CRM-M/33359/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a petition seeking quashing of an FIR under Section 482 CrPC. The Court directed the trial court to note an affidavit admitting the petitioner was wrongly prosecuted due to a clerical mistake regarding the Assistant Engineer's posting.

What did the court decide?

Order directed the trial court to note the affidavit clarifying the petitioner's innocence in the final judgment.

Inderjit Singh Vs State of Punjab & Anr. — Corruption | Punjab & Haryana HC (2023)

¶1

CRM-M-33359-2016

¶2

1 2023:PHHC:145549

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

239

¶5

CRM-M-33359-2016 Date of Decision: 16.11.2023

INDERJIT SINGH

....Pe��oner

Versus

STATE OF PUNJAB & ANR ....Respondent

¶10

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA

¶11

Present: Mr. D.V. Sharma, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Sunder Kumari, Advocate for the pe��oner.

¶12

Mr. Ravinder Singh, AAG, Punjab.

¶13

Mr. Ashish Grover, Advocate for respondent No.2.

¶14

¶15

ANOOP CHITKARA, J.

¶16

FIR No.	Dated	Police Sta�on	Sec�ons
160	05.10.2011	Sadar Ludhiana,	36(1) of Punjab Apartment and Property
		District ludhiana	Regula�on act 1995 (in charge sheet
			addi�on of Sec�ons 13(1)D r/w 13(2) of
			Preven�on of Corrup�on Act 1988 and
			Sec�on 420, 120-B IPC)

¶17

Seeking quashing of the above men�oned FIR, pe��oner has come up before this Court under Sec�on 482 CrPC.

¶18

At the outset, pe��oner’s counsel has drawn a<en�on of this court to affidavit dated 29.09.2015 filed by Shri Rupinder Singh, PPS, Senior Superintendent of Police, Vigilance Bureau, Ludhiana.

¶19

Counsel for the complainant as well as State counsel submit that the ma<er is now fixed for remaining defence evidence on 17.11.2023 i.e. tomorrow and if defence evidence is not recorded then it will be heard finally.

¶20

However, pe��oner’s counsel submits that in para 4 of the affidavit dated 29.09.2015, filed by Rupinder Singh, it is specifically clarified that the pe��oner was not present and he is being prosecuted. For the sake of clarifica�on, en�re affidavit filed by Shri Rupinder Singh, Senior Superintendent of Police, Vigilance Bureau, Ludhiana, is being extracted as follows:-

¶21

“1. That the above noted pe��on is pending before this Hon’ble Court is now fixed for 01.10.2015.

¶22

ANJU RANI 2023.11.17 11:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶23

CRM-M-33359-2016

¶24

¶25

2. That earlier the present pe��on was fixed before this Hon'ble Court on 04.08.2015 and this Hon'ble Court was pleased to direct the answering deponent to file his affidavit by verifying the record of the GLADA. The relevant part of the said order is reproduced below:-

¶26

"Reply by way of affidavit of Sa�nder Singh, Senior Superintendent of Police, Vigilance Bureau, Ludhiana has been filed by the State. Gurpreet Kaur, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance Bureau is present.

¶27

When the GLADA itself has taken a stand that the disputed area never remained under the charge of pe��oner, there is no specific verifica�on by the Vigilance Department except relying upon the le8ers.

¶28

It is directed that Senior Superintendent of Police, Vigilance Bureau would appear in person and File his affidavit by verifying the record of the GLADA"

¶29

3. That in compliance to the above noted order of this Hon'ble Court, it is respec<ully submi8ed that earlier during the inves�ga�on of case FIR No.160 dated 05.10.2011, informa�on was sought from the office of GLADA as to who was the concerned Assistant Engineer at the relevant �me in the area. Accordingly the Addl. Chief Administrator, GLADA vide Le8er No.6835 dated 28.06.2012 informed the Vigilance Bureau that the present pe��oner was posted as Assistant Engineer at the relevant �me i.e. from 04.07.2006 to 02.04.2007 in the area of Village Gill-1 and Gill-II. Not only this, even statement of the then Divisional Engineer was also recorded u/s 161 Cr.P.C. who also stated that the present pe��oner was posted at the relevant �me in the area where the illegal colony was developed. As the GLADA was only conversant about the pos�ng of the concerned employee, thus the Vigilance Department relied upon the said le8er of the GLADA and on receipt of the said le8er from the GLADA, the present pe��oner was nominated as accused in the said FIR.

¶30

4. That now in compliance of order dated 04.08.2015 this Hon'ble Court, again clarifica�on was sought OVT.com the GLADA and the GLADA vide its Le8er No.9859 dated 07.09.2015 has informed the answering deponent that due to clerical mistake, the name of the present pe��oner was men�oned in the le8er dated 28.06.2012 (Annexure P-1/T) whereas Mukh�ar Singh, J.E. (now re�red) was posted at the relevant �me at the said area where the illegal colony was developed. Accordingly now the present pe��oner will be got discharged from the ld. Court and the said Mukh�ar Singh, J.E. (now re�red) will be nominated as accused in this FIR.”

¶31

Considering the fact that the ma<er is fixed for final hearing, this Court is closing

¶32

the pe��on by direc�ng the trial Court to take note of the affidavit referred above, while passing final judgment and refer this order in the judgment, which itself detailed innocence of the pe��oner in the stand of the State.

¶33

ANJU RANI 2023.11.17 11:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶34

CRM-M-33359-2016

¶35

¶36

This order is specifically being passed for the reason that accused, pe��oner as well as State is admiCng the contents of affidavit filed by Shri Rupinder Singh, Senior Superintendent of Police and State cannot deny the contents thereby and the complainant has no locus to oppose this averment made in the affidavit.

¶37

7. There would be no need for a cer�fied copy of this order for furnishing bonds, and any Advocate for the Pe��oner can download this order along with case status from the official web page of this Court and a8est it to be a true copy. In case the a8es�ng officer wants to verify the authen�city, such an officer can also verify its authen�city and may download and use the downloaded copy for a8es�ng bonds.

¶38

Pe��on is disposed of with the aforesaid observa�ons. Pending applica�ons, if any, stand disposed of.

¶39

(ANOOP CHITKARA) JUDGE 16.11.2023 anju rani Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/no Whether reportable? Yes/no

¶40

ANJU RANI 2023.11.17 11:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Inderjit Singh v. State of Punjab & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Inderjit Singh v. State of Punjab & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Phalel Singh Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Rohit @ Kalia Vs State of Haryana and Another

Omparkash Rana Vs State of Haryana and Others

Inderjit Singh Vs State of Punjab & Anr.

Inderjit Kaur Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Gurpreet Singh and Others Vs State of Punjab and Others