Crl.Misc.No.M-5538 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No.M-5538 of 2009 DATE OF DECISION: 26.02.2009 Satender Upadhayay ...PETITIONER VS. State of Haryana ...RESPONDENT CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHINDER PAL PRESENT: Mr.Vivek Singla Advocate for for the petitioner. Mr.Gaurav Dhir, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana for the respondent-State. MOHINDER PAL, J.(Oral) This is a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for quashing FIR No.453 dated 27.09.2008 under Sections 193/201/204 of the Indian Penal Code, Police station Civil Line, Gurgaon and all other consequent proceedings; also quashing the order dated 07.08.2008 (Annexure P1) passed by the Special Judge, Gurgaon arising out of FIR No.651 dated 21.09.2005 and also proceedings in case FIR No.453, dated 27.09.2008 registered at Civil Line, Police Station Gurgaon. As per facts of this case, the petitioner is a reporter with Bag Newsline Network Private Limited. He was summoned as a witness in Crl.Misc.No.M-5538 of 2009 2 the trial Court ensuing on the basis of the aforesaid FIR. He was required to produce the evidence of the sting operation. However, the petitioner failed to produce the relevant record in the Court and, accordingly, the present case has been registered. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the trial Court was not straightway competent to direct the police to register the FIR, which was hit by Section 195(b)(i) of the Code of Criminal Procedure rather the trial Court should have directed to its own officer to file a complaint with the concerned Magistrate as contained in Section 195(1)(b) (i) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also referred to the judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court titled as M.S.Ahlawat Vs. State of Haryana and another AIR 2000 SC 168; B.K.Gupta Vs. Damodar H.Bajaj and others, JT 2001 (4) SC 422 and a judgment of this Court as Sardul Singh Vs. State of Haryana 1992 Crl.L.J. 354. The proposition of law contained in these judgments is not disputed. However, each case has its own facts and no straight-jacket formula can be applied while dealing with such cases. The submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be looked into at this stage once it is established that the Court is working within four corners of law. The microscopic scrutiny of every judicial action cannot be permitted. No ground is made out for interference by this Court. Dismissed. February 26, 2009 ( MOHINDER PAL ) jt JUDGE