Criminal Revision No.1086 of 2009 (O&M) 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Criminal Revision No.1086 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: 1.5.2009 Suba Singh and another ......Petitioners Versus Central Bureau of Investigation .......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.Pankag Bhardwaj, Advocate, for the petitioner. **** SABINA, J. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking quashing of orders dated 19.2.2009 passed by the Special Judicial Magistrate, Central Bureau of Investigation ('CBI' for short) Punjab, Patiala, whereby charge has been framed against the petitioners and the application for dropping proceedings against the petitioners has been dismissed. Criminal Writ Petition No.1748 of 1996 was filed by Balbir Kaur against State of Punjab and others. This Court directed the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Amritsar to hold an enquiry vide order Criminal Revision No.1086 of 2009 (O&M) 2 dated 6.4.2005 and to find out as to whether Baljit Singh was taken away by SHO Suba Singh and ASI Dalbir Singh on 7.8.1991. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Amritsar, submitted the report to the effect that from the evidence led by Balbir Kaur, it was not proved that Baljit Singh had ever been picked up by SHO Suba Singh and ASI Dalbir Singh. The said enquiry report was not accepted by this Court and vide order dated 27.1.2006, the case was handed over to CBI for investigation. After investigation, CBI presented challan against the petitioners and the petitioners moved an application for dropping of proceedings on the ground that no sanction from Central Government under Sections 4, 5 and 6 of the Disturbed Areas Act had been taken. The said application has been dismissed by the Special Judicial Magistrate, CBI, Punjab, Patiala vide impugned order dated 19.2.2009. It has been observed in para 2 of the impugned order as under:- “It is averred in the application that the present case was registered on the basis of Criminal Writ Petition No.1748 of 1996 filed by Smt. Balbir Kaur wife of Sh.Baljit Singh, resident of Village Mallowal Santa, Tehsil Tarn Taran (Amritsar) against the State of Punjab and senior officers of Punjab Police including Inspector Suba Singh, the then SHO and other police officials of Police Station Chabal. Hon'ble High Court had directed the CJM, Amritsar to Criminal Revision No.1086 of 2009 (O&M) 3 hold an enquiry vide order dated 6.4.2005 and to find out as to whether Baljit Singh was taken away by SHO Suba Singh and ASI Dalbir Singh on 7.8.1991. Thereafter, the CJM, Amritsar, Ms. Harpreet Kaur Randhawa had submitted her enquiry report to the Hon'ble High Court through the District and Sessions Judge, Amritsar on 14.12.2005, concluding that from the evidence led by the petitioner, it was not proved that Baljit Singh was ever picked up by the SHO Suba Singh and ASI Dalbir Singh but that enquiry report of the CJM, Amritsar was not accepted by the Hon'ble High Court and that worthy Court, vide order dated 27.1.2006, handed over the matter to the CBI for investigation.” In the case of State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal , , 1992 Supp(1) Supreme Court Cases 335, the Apex Court has held as under:- “The following categories of cases can be stated by way of illustration wherein the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482, Cr.P.C. Can be exercised by the High Court either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently chennelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and Criminal Revision No.1086 of 2009 (O&M) 4 to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised:- (1)Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complainant, 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. (2)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 Section 156(1)of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code. (3)Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do no disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. (4)Where, the allegations in the FIR 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 Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code. (5)Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis Criminal Revision No.1086 of 2009 (O&M) 5 of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. (6)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 specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of aggrieved party. (7)Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceedings 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.” We also give a note of caution to the effect that the power of quashing a criminal proceeding should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases; that the court will not be justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint and that the extraordinary or inherent powers do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the court to act according to its Criminal Revision No.1086 of 2009 (O&M) 6 whim or caprice.” In the present case, charge has been framed against the petitioners under Sections 120-B, 344, 330 and 365 IPC. As per the allegations against the petitioners, they had wrongly confined Baljit Singh in the police station Chabal during the period from 7.8.1991 to 16.8.1991 for extracting his confession with regard to alleged snatching of ear rings of a lady at Chabal bus stand and for knowing the names of the militants possessing fire arms. At this stage, the Special Judicial Magistrate, CBI, Punjab, Patiala was only required to see as to whether prima facie case is made out against the petitioners or not. The allegations against the petitioners do not lead to the inference that they were performing any official act by illegally confining Baljit Singh to extract confession from him. The said act cannot be said to be part of the official duty of the petitioners. Prosecution will lead its evidence during trial to prove its case. Hence, at this stage, no ground for interference is made out. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE May 01, 2009 anita