CRM-M-4874 of 2009 (O&M) - 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** CRM-M-4874 of 2009 (O&M) DATE OF DECISION: 09.07.2009 **** Narinder Singh . . . . Petitioner VS. State of Punjab . . . . Respondent **** CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN **** Present: Mr.Kanwaljit Singh, Sr. Advocate with Mr.Harvinder Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Ranbir Singh Rawat, AAG, Punjab for the respondent/State Mr.Surinder Garg, Advocate for the complainant. **** RAKESH KUMAR JAIN J.(ORAL) Learned counsel for the petitioner, inter alia, contends that in respect of the complaint, Deputy Superintendent of Police (D), Bathinda recorded that a criminal offence is made out. However, the Deputy District Attorney (Legal) recorded his opinion that no criminal offence is made out. The matter was further examined by Superintendent of Police (D), Bathinda, who too opined that no criminal offence is made out. Similar was the view taken by the Vigilance Bureau after a detailed and lengthy investigation. CRM-M-4874 of 2009 (O&M) - 2 - The complainant, however, after concealing the aforesaid facts filed a petition i.e Crl. Misc. No.39996 of 2007 praying for issuance of directions for registration of FIR. Vide order date 13.3.2008, the said petition was disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to approach the Senior Superintendent of Police under Section 154(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (in short ‘Cr.P.C.) with liberty to file an appropriate application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C if no action is taken by the Police. Learned counsel for the complainant submitted that without approaching the Senior Superintendent of Police, the complainant straightway filed an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and obtained order of registration of the FIR. He further submits that the present case has been registered, after about six years of the selection, by the disgruntled candidates who could not succeed in the competiton. As against this, Mr.Surinder Garg, learned counsel for the complainant has vehemently argued that bungling in the result is writ large from Annexure P-4. He further submits that the entire record of this selection is still in possession of the college, therefore, custodial interrogation is required. It is recorded in the order of this Court dated 14.5.2009 that SI Mukhtiar Singh, Police Station Kotwali, Bathinda had stated that the entire record is in his possession. Learned counsel for the complainant had taken time to file an appropriate response in this regard. So far no response has been filed. However, he contends that he has applied for some documents under the RTI Act. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that, pursuant to the order dated 19.02.2009, the petitioner has joined CRM-M-4874 of 2009 (O&M) - 3 - the investigation. This statement is not disputed by counsel for the State. Be that as it may, without commenting on the merits of the case, the order dated 19.2.2009 is hereby made absolute. It is directed that the petitioner shall join the investigation as and when required and shall abide by the conditions as envisaged by Section 438(2) Cr.P.C. Petition is disposed of. (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) JULY 09, 2009 JUDGE vivek