CRM No. M 18075 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -- CRM No. M 18075 of 2010 Date of decision: 09.05.2011 Manjeet Singh and others ........ Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and others .......Respondent(s) Coram: Hon'ble Ms Justice Nirmaljit Kaur -.- Present: Mr. R S Bains, Advocate for the petitioners Ms Neelam, AAG, Punjab for the respondent - State Mr. J P Singla, Advocate for respondent No. 3 Mr. K S Bassi, Advocate for the applicant -.- 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Nirmaljit Kaur, J. (Oral) CRM 25317 of 2011 C.M is allowed and applicant is ordered to be impleaded as respondent No. 4. Memo of parties be amended accordingly. Main case This is a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C praying for quashing the letter (P8) dated 24.05.2010 and letter dated 23.04.2010 (P7) of BDPO, vide which, it is stated that a blatant attempt is being made to CRM No. M 18075 of 2010 2 interfere in the investigation of FIR No. 643 dated 18.12.2009 under Section 406, 409 IPC (Section 465, 468, 471 IPC added later after the receipt of report of Forensic Science Laboratory dated 25.03.2010) and further directions for time bound completion of investigation within three months and submission of under Section 173 Cr.P.C report to the Magistrate. The petitioner sent a complaint to the Division Commissioner, Patiala on 01.04.2008 which was referred to the District Development and Panchayat Officer for necessary action and report. Another complaint was given on 30.01.2009 regarding the scandal of former Panchayat and Sarpanch who had been Sarpanch from 2003-2008. An inquiry was ordered. During the inquiry, record of the Gram Panchayat was found to be missing. Accordingly FIR was directed to be registered. The Deputy Director, vide letter dated 24.09.2009 gave direction for recovery of the record. Thereafter, the FIR was registered against Balwinder Singh Sarpanch on 18.12.2009. Balwinder Singh filed anticipatory bail before this Court on 26.04.2010. However, the same was dismissed on the same day. The operative part of the orders reads as under:- “After giving my thoughtful consideration to the matter, it may be noticed that the petitioner has given receipt (P1) whereby, it is submitted that the record had been submitted to the Panchayat Secretary Sukhwinder Singh Pannu. The signatures of Sukhwinder Singh Pannu, according to the report of the Assistant Director, FSL Punjab, is incorrect and the signatures do not tally. The petitioner, however, seeks to counter the report by way of report submitted by Dr. Inderjit Singh. It may, however, be noticed that it has not been denied that Sukhwinder Singh Pannu was not the Panchayat Secretary of Gram Panchayat Choura on 27.01.2009. Besides, the fact that one Major Singh has CRM No. M 18075 of 2010 3 submitted the record of the Gram Panchayat is also quite strange as it is not shown as to how the record of Gram Panchayat Choura came in the house of said Major Singh. This matter would required to be gone into by the investigating authorities and the entire position ascertained after custodial interrogation of the petitioner. In the facts and circumstances of the case, no case is made out for the grant of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner. This petition is accordingly dismissed.” Leave alone a custodial interrogation, in total disregard of the said order and in order to hush up the matter, the BDPO, wrote a letter to the Deputy Director (P-7) who in turn wrote a letter directing the BDPO Sanaur (P8) to get the FIR cancelled. Reply has been filed by the Investigating Officer SI Mohinder Singh. As per the said reply, SSP, Patiala, directed him to conclude the investigation within four months. Meanwhile, during investigation, the SHO, Patiala, directed him not to proceed further in the matter till the decision of the Deputy Commissioner, Patiala. SI-Mohinder Singh, who is present in Court, states that in view of the letters P7 and P8 as above, he had no choice but to submit the un- traced report in pursuance to letters P7 and P8 which was forwarded to him by the SSP, Patiala. It is evident from the above fact that not only the Investigating Officer is being pressurized and influenced and directed to cancel the FIR but efforts have been made to scuttle the investigation mid way for the reasons best known. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed on record the letter dated 26.06.2010 from DSP, Patiala, letter dated 09.07.2010 from District Attorney to SHO, PS Sadar, Patiala, letter dated 25.04.2010 from CRM No. M 18075 of 2010 4 SHO, PS Sadar, Patiala and the opinion of the District Attorney along with the forwarding letter dated 02.12.2010 of the Deputy Commissioner, Patiala recommending that it would not be proper to cancel the FIR. In view of the above, the present petition is disposed of with direction to the Investigating Officer SI Mohinder Singh to proceed further with the investigation in view of the letter dated 02.12.2010 of the Deputy Commissioner, Patiala. While investigating the matter, he shall not be influenced by the letter P7 and P8, referred to above. He shall investigate the matter and submit his final report as expeditiously as possible. Further, the Deputy Commissioner, Patiala shall personally monitor the investigation and ensure a fair investigation. (Nirmaljit Kaur) Judge 09.05.2011 mohan