Petitioner Assistant Junior Engineer sought quashing of FIR under Section 482 Cr.P.C. alleging extortion and abetment of theft. Court dismissed petition, holding allegations false and matter fit for trial, directing investigation into bribe refusal aspect.
Petition for quashing of FIR stands dismissed. Pending applications disposed of.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
2023:PHHC:158459
110 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-57015-2023 Date of Decision: 11.12.2023
Pavi�ar Singh
...Pe��oner
Versus
State of Punjab and another
…Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA
Present: Mr. Gaurav Singla, Advocate for the pe��oner (through V.C.).
Mr. Ravinder Singh, A.A.G., Punjab.
ANOOP CHITKARA, J.
| FIR No. | Dated | Police Sta� | on | Sec�ons |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 01 | 08.01.2021 | Vigilance | Bureau, | 7 of PC Act, 1988 and 120-B |
| Pa�ala, Pa�ala |
District | IPC |
Jyoti Sharma 2023.12.13 16:20 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment Sector 1, High Court, Chandigarh
1
2023:PHHC:158459
pleaded that they did not have much money as a bribe, the pe��oner gave an ul�matum of 8 P.M. that day; however, the complainant could not make arrangements and asked for more �me. ACer that, the pe��oner sent one Gurmail Singh-lineman, and he demanded illegal gra�fica�on. The complainant submi�ed that there was a nego�a�on with the said lineman about payment. On 07.01.2021, the said lineman again came and said that they have yet to deposit the removed meter for checking and that if they pay a sum of Rs.10,000/-, they will close the ma�er. Gurmail Singh further said that from this amount of Rs.10,000/-, a share must go to SDO and XEN. However, the complainant had recorded the en�re conversa�on with Gurmail Singh on his mobile phone. Later, he told Gurmail Singh that he would pay a sum of Rs.5000/- on 08.01.2021 and the remaining later. Subsequently, before handing over the money, he made a complaint to the police, and a trap was laid, and money was recovered from Gurmail Singh.
Jyoti Sharma 2023.12.13 16:20 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment Sector 1, High Court, Chandigarh
2
2023:PHHC:158459
it was a counterblast. This Court cannot assume such an allega�on without taking the viewpoint of the complainant’s wife, and all this can be done by the Inves�gator and subsequently during the trial. The Inves(gator is directed to inves(gate this aspect of the ma4er, as men(oned in para no.8 of the present pe((on, by doing further inves(ga(on. The said further inves(ga(on qua para no.8 will be completed within one month from today.
Pe((on stands dismissed. All pending applica�ons, if any also stands disposed of.
(ANOOP CHITKARA) JUDGE
11.12.2023 Jyo� Sharma Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes Whether reportable: No.
Jyoti Sharma 2023.12.13 16:20 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment Sector 1, High Court, Chandigarh
3
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the FIR alleging theft of electricity and extortion under the PC Act is maintainable and should be quashed.
Whether allegations regarding the petitioner's involvement in a 2018 offense are sufficient to quash the present FIR without further inquiry.
3 provisions across 3 enactments
Paviar Singh
State of Punjab
Anoop Chitkara
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
