IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No. 34829-M of 2005 Date of decision: 12th February, 2009 Jhalman Singh … Petitioner Versus State of Punjab … Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Mr. V.K. Sandhir, Advocate for Mr. Sukhjinder Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Anter Singh Brar, Deputy Advocate General Punjab for the State. KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL) Three arguments have been raised before this Court. Firstly, it has been stated that petitioner is a Panchayat Secretary and he cannot be prosecuted without obtaining a requisite sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C. Secondly, it has been stated that in a departmental inquiry, petitioner has been absolved of the allegations by Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Nawanshahar. Thirdly, it has been stated that FIR has been lodged after a period of five years. Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in ‘P.S. Rajya v. State of Bihar’ 1996 (3) RCR (Criminal) 261 to say that if one is absolved in departmental inquiry, no criminal proceedings can be initiated. Relying upon P.S. Rajya’s case (supra), Single Bench of this Court had held that if one is exonerated in the departmental inquiry, FIR along with subsequent proceedings is to be quashed. Criminal Misc. No. 34829-M of 2005 Recently, the facts of P.S. Rajya’s case (supra) were considered by Hon'ble Apex Court in ‘State v. M. Krishna Mohan’ 2007 (4) RCR Criminal 882 and it has been held that judgment has not laid a rule of law but is distinguishable on the facts of that case. Para 31 of M. Krishna Mohan’s judgment (supra) reads as under: “31. The said decision was, therefore, rendered on the facts obtaining therein and cannot be said to be an authority for the proposition that exoneration in departmental proceeding ipso facto would lead to a judgment of acquittal in a criminal trial.” Whether sanction is required in the present case or not, is a mixed question of law and facts. It is after the conclusion of the evidence, petitioner will always be at liberty to contend that in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the act by which criminal liability is fastened upon him, was discharged or was purported to be discharged in performance of the official duty. Third contention that there is delay of five years in lodging of the FIR is one circumstance, which can be considered by the trial Court. It is not that if the FIR has been lodged after a delay, that in itself is a ground for quashing of the FIR. Taking into consideration that the FIR was recorded on 9th January, 2003, trial Court is directed to conclude the trial within six months after receipt of certified copy of this order. Hence, there is no merit in the present petition and the same is dismissed. [KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA] JUDGE February 12, 2009 rps 2