IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH LPA No. 1994 of 2011 Date of Decision: 31.10.2011. Samdeep Mohan Varghese --Appellant Versus State of Punjab & others --Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA. Present:- Mr. Ashwani Talwar, Advocate for the appellant. *** PERMOD KOHLI.J (ORAL) The appellant before us is named as an accused in FIR No.30 dated 5.2.2010 registered at Police Station Rajpura City, Distt. Patiala for offences punishable under sections 65, 66-A, 66-C, 66-E of Information Technology Act 2000 and sections 419, 420, 408, 467, 468, 469, 471 and 120-B of the I.P.C. He filed CWP No. 21058 of 2010 before this Court seeking a direction for handing over the investigation of the aforesaid F.I.R to the C.B.I apprehending that he would be involved in false cases. It was also inter alia alleged that though the offences under the Information Technology Act are bailable in nature, however, with a view to falsely implicate the appellant, various sections of I.P.C have been incorporated in the F.I.R. The grievance projected in the writ petition was that the appellant who was an employee in the respondent no.4-company, lodged various complaints against the company for money laundering and various other offences and as a retaliation to the same the aforementioned F.I.R has been registered against him. It is also alleged that the Punjab Police has been harassing the appellant, his family members, who are residing in Kerala and LPA No. 1994 of 2011 -2- even the Law Officers of the Punjab Govt. visited Kerala with the sole object of harassing his family members. The appellant also apprehends flow of criminal cases in future against him. Appellant has indicated various incidents of alleged vengeance against him and his family members. Details of such incidents are contained in para 5 of the judgement impugned before us. Considering the plea of the appellant for reference of the investigation of the case to the C.B.I., learned Single Judge observed that the apprehensions of the appellant may or may not be true, however, taking care of the allegations and the apprehensions of the appellant, learned Single Judge transferred the investigation of the case to the Crime Branch of the Punjab Police, Chandigarh. One of the plea raised by the appellant before the learned Single Judge was the want of jurisdiction with the Punjab Police to register a case against him as the alleged offence was committed in Delhi. Even this aspect of the plea of the appellant has been taken care of by learned Single Judge and it has been left to the Crime Branch to also examine the question of jurisdiction and if, on inquiry it is found that the Punjab Police do not have the jurisdiction, the investigating agency has been left free to refer the matter to the place of alleged commission of offence. Mr. Talwar, learned counsel appearing for the appellant has strenuously argued before us that some politicians are involved in ensuring that the appellant is implicated in false criminal cases and harassed. He has further argued that even the family members of the appellant are being harassed, though, there is no allegation of commission of any offence against them. LPA No. 1994 of 2011 -3- We have examined the averments made in the writ petition. From the cause title of the writ petition it appears that the allegations are made against three police officials, who were entrusted with the investigation of the F.I.R, referred to herein above. No other person including any politician is a party to the writ petition, therefore, any allegation to that extent deserves no consideration at this stage. In so far as the allegations against the respondents-police officials, are concerned, with the directions issued by learned Single Judge all those respondents-police officials cease to be a part of the investigation, the matter having been referred to the Crime Branch of the Punjab Police. Thus, the apprehensions of the appellant are taken care of by the impugned order. As regards the question of lack of jurisdiction with the Punjab Police to take cognizance of the alleged offences is concerned, suffice it to say that learned Single Judge has left it to the Crime Branch to examine this aspect as well. Apart from that the appellant is at liberty to seek the appropriate remedy, if, the appellant is of the view that the Punjab Police has no jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offences. We do not find any valid ground to interfere. Appeal dismissed. (PERMOD KOHLI) JUDGE (TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA) JUDGE 31.10.2011. lucky