Dismissed¶28

Sanjeev Bansal v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC4 Mar 2025CRM-M/2399/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

CRM-M-2399-2025 (O&M), Punjab & Haryana HC at Chandigarh, decided 04.03.2025, Harpreet Singh Brar, J. (oral) - challenge to premature exoneration/inquiry report declaring respondent No.5 innocent; FIR No.45 dated 24.06.2024, PS Ladhuwal, Ludhiana (cheating S.420, conspiracy S.120-B IPC, S.82 Registration Act 1908); S.528 BNSS 2023; reliance on Jaswinder Singh CRM-M-18244-2008 and DGP Punjab notification/instructions (Annexure P-5); representation dated 04.11.2024; inquiry by ADCP Zone-3; petition DISMISSED with liberty to invoke alternative remedy.

What did the court decide?

No relief; petition dismissed. Petitioner left free to invoke the alternative remedy available to him in accordance with law. ¶28

Sanjeev Bansal Vs State of Punjab and Ors. — Cheating and Forgery | Punjab & Haryana HC (2025)

CRM-M-2399-2025

-1-

119

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶5

CRM-M-2399-2025 (O&M) Date of decision: 04.03.2025

Sanjeev Bansal

... Petitioner

Vs.

State of Punjab and others

¶10

... Respondents

¶11

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR

¶12

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

¶13

Mr. Subhash Godara, Addl. A.G., Punjab.

¶14

¶15

HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. (ORAL)

¶16

Present petition has been filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeking setting aside the inquiry report dated 11.12.2024 (Annexure P-4) conducted by the Superintendent of Police (3), Ludhiana, declaring respondent No.5 as innocent, in FIR No.45 dated 24.06.2024 under Sections 420 & 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 82 of Registration Act, 1908, registered at Police Station Ladhuwal, District Police Commissionerate Ludhiana (Annexure P-1).

¶17

Learned counsel for the petitioner, inter alia , contends that on the

¶18

VISHNU 2025.03.10 10:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh

¶19

CRM-M-2399-2025

¶20

-2-

¶21

basis of detailed inquiry conducted by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Zone-3, Ludhiana, FIR ( supra ) was registered and thereafter, the accused was not successful even in obtaining the anticipatory bail and after nine months of registration of FIR ( supra ), the same officer declared respondent No.5 as innocent in a cursory manner and the impugned action of respondent No.3Additional Deputy Commissioner of Police, Zone-3, Ludhiana, is violative of the judgment passed by this Court in Jaswinder Singh Vs. State of Punjab, CRM-M-18244-2008 as well as the notification/instructions issued by the Director General of Police, Punjab (Annexure P-5).

¶22

Learned State counsel refers to the status report filed on behalf of respondents No.1 to 4 on 18.02.2025 before this Court and submits that perusal thereof clearly indicates that FIR ( supra ) was registered on the basis of inquiry conducted by Additional Deputy Commissioner of Police, Zone-3, Ludhiana, who recommended registration of FIR against Manohar Singh @ Billoo, Baljit Kaur and Harjinder Kaur @ Jassi. Further, it has been clearly mentioned in the status report that role of respondent No.5 shall be ascertained during investigation of the FIR after its registration. He further submits that after registration of FIR ( supra ), SHO of the concerned police station nominated respondent No.5 as accused. Thereafter, respondent No.5 made a representation on 04.11.2024 to the Commissioner of Police, Ludhiana on the ground that he has been falsely implicated and on the basis of said representation, an inquiry was marked to Additional Deputy Commissioner of

¶23

VISHNU 2025.03.10 10:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh

¶24

CRM-M-2399-2025

¶25

-3-

¶26

Police, Zone-3, Ludhiana, who, after thoroughly examining the veracity of the allegations made by the petitioner, came to the conclusion that there is no evidence available on record to indicate complicity of respondent No.5 in this case and recommended to exonerate him and also made recommendation to enhance the offence under Section 419 of IPC in the FIR ( supra ). Learned State counsel further submits that it is not a case of multiple inquiries and the present case is not covered by the ratio of law laid down in Jaswinder Singh ’s case ( supra ), relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶27

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the record of the case with their able assistance, this Court finds no force in the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶28

Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, without commenting anything further on veracity of the claims made by the parties, lest it may prejudice case of either of the parties, present petition is dismissed. 6. However, the petitioner would be at liberty to invoke the alternative remedy, as available to him, in accordance with law.

¶29

04.03.2025 vishnu

¶30

[ HARPREET SINGH BRAR ] JUDGE

¶31

Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/

¶32

VISHNU 2025.03.10 10:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Inquiry report dated 11.12.2024 (Annexure P-4) conducted by the Superintendent of Police (3), Ludhiana, declaring respondent No.5 as innocent in FIR No.45 dated 24.06.2024; sought to be set aside via petition under Section 528 BNSS, 2023.¶16
Superintendent of Police (3), Ludhiana · 11.12.2024
Prior proceeding
Registration of FIR No.45 dated 24.06.2024 under Sections 420 & 120-B IPC and Section 82 Registration Act, 1908 at Police Station Ladhuwal, District Police Commissionerate Ludhiana (Annexure P-1).¶16
Prior proceeding
Per petitioner's counsel, the FIR was registered on the basis of a detailed inquiry conducted by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Zone-3, Ludhiana.¶21
Prior proceeding
The accused was not successful in obtaining anticipatory bail (petitioner's contention).¶21
Prior proceeding
Petitioner's grievance: after nine months of registration of the FIR, the same officer declared respondent No.5 as innocent in a cursory manner.¶21
Prior proceeding
Status report filed on behalf of respondents No.1 to 4 on 18.02.2025 before this Court.¶22
Prior proceeding
Per status report, the FIR was registered on the basis of inquiry by the Additional Deputy Commissioner of Police, Zone-3, Ludhiana, who recommended registration against Manohar Singh @ Billoo, Baljit Kaur and Harjinder Kaur @ Jassi.¶22
Prior proceeding
Per status report, role of respondent No.5 was to be ascertained during investigation of the FIR after its registration.¶22
Prior proceeding
After registration of the FIR, the SHO of the concerned police station nominated respondent No.5 as accused.¶22
Prior proceeding
Respondent No.5 made a representation on 04.11.2024 to the Commissioner of Police, Ludhiana claiming false implication.¶22
Prior proceeding
On the basis of respondent No.5's representation, an inquiry was marked to the Additional Deputy Commissioner of Police, Zone-3, Ludhiana.¶22
Prior proceeding
ADCP Zone-3, after examining the allegations, concluded there was no evidence of respondent No.5's complicity, recommended his exoneration, and also recommended enhancing the offence under Section 419 IPC in the FIR.¶26

Sanjeev Bansal v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanjeev Bansal v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gurmukh Singh Vs State of Punjab

Ranjit Singh Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Ashok Kumar and Ors. Vs State of U.T Chd and Ors.

Pulkit Agarwal Vs State of Punjab and Others

Parvinder Pal Singh Vs State of Punjab and Others

M/S Vishnu Trading & Ors. Vs State of Punjab