Criminal Misc. No.-M of 8775 of 2008 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No.-M of 8775 of 2008 Date of Decision : October 12, 2009 Dr. Sumit Sofat ... Petitioner versus State of Punjab and others ... Respondent Present: Mr. Navjeet Singh, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Gourav Garg Dhuriwala, AAG Punjab for respondent Nos. 1 to 5 Mr. Ankur Mittal, Advocate for respondent nos. 7 to 10 L.N. Mittal, J. Criminal Misc. No. 50682of 2009 The application is allowed and reply on behalf of respondent Nos. 7 to 10 is taken on record subject to all just exceptions. Criminal Misc. No. M-9775 of 2008 Dr. Sumit Sofat has filed this petition under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short, Cr.P.C. ) for direction to respondent nos. 2 to 4 (police authorities of Punjab) for taking appropriate action against respondent nos. 5 to 10 for hatching criminal conspiracy by committing forgery and fabrication of report of respondent no. 3 (Additional Director General of Police, Crime, Punjab) and using the said forged report as genuine one for misguiding, misleading and misinforming this Court Criminal Misc. No.-M of 8775 of 2008 -2- regarding false compliance of order dated 17.11.2005 (Annexure P/1) passed by this Court in Criminal Misc. No. 62792-M of 2005 which had been filed by the present petitioner and his wife. Vide order dated 17.11.2005 (Annexure P/1), various directions were issued including the direction to look into the allegations of the petitioners of that case as made in representation (Annexure P/10) annexed with that petition and to dispose of the said representation in accordance with law. The grievance of the petitioner in the instant petition is that respondent no. 6 who was Superintendent of Police, City (I), Ludhiana at the relevant time sent false report vide letter dated 13.1.2006 (Annexure P/4) to respondent no. 5 who was then Senior Superintendent of Police, Ludhiana that investigation in the above representation had already been done by respondent no. 3 who after inquiry recommended arrest of all the accused of the FIR which had been impugned in the previous petition filed by the petitioner and his wife. The petitioner has now alleged that no such inquiry in fact had been conducted by respondent no. 3 and his alleged report was forged and fabricated by respondent nos. 5 and 6 in connivance with respondent nos. 7 to 10. Respondent no. 7 had lodged the FIR which was challenged in the previous petition whereas respondent nos. 8 to 10 are wife and sons of respondent no. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. The grievance of the petitioner that report of respondent no. 3 regarding inquiry into representation of the petitioner and his wife had been forged and fabricated cannot be accepted in view of reply filed by Criminal Misc. No.-M of 8775 of 2008 -3- respondent nos. 1 to 4 wherein they have affirmed that such an inquiry had been conducted. The report mentioned by respondent no. 6 in his letter Annexure P/4 has been owned by respondent no. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner was at pains to contend that order dated 17.11.2005 was received by respondent no. 3 on 13.12.2005 and therefore, report dated 16.12.2005, Annexure R/1 could not have been submitted after investigation into the representation of the petitioner within three days. The contention, although apparently attractive, is devoid of any merit. There is no material on record to substantiate the plea that order dated 17.11.2005 of this Court was received by respondent no. 3 on 13.12.2005 only as sought to be contended by learned counsel for the petitioner. Reference for this plea was made by learned counsel for the petitioner to letter dated 13.12.2005, Annexure P/2 written by respondent no. 3 to respondent no. 4 for compliance of order dated 17.11.2005. However, it would not depict that order dated 17.11.2005 of this Court had been received by respondent no. 3 on 13.12.2005 only, the date on which respondent no. 3 sent letter Annexure P/2 to respondent no. 4 for compliance of the said order. In addition thereto, learned State counsel pointed out that action on representation which was annexed as Annexure P/10 with the previous petition, had already been initiated by the authorities even before passing of order dated 17.11.2005, Annexure P/1 by this Court and therefore, inquiry into said representation was concluded on 16.12.2005 vide inquiry report Annexure R/1. In addition to the aforesaid, learned counsel for respondent nos. 7 to 10 has contended that the petitioner had filed three contempt petitions bearing COCP No. 286 of 2008, COCP No. 1409 of 2008 and COCP NO. Criminal Misc. No.-M of 8775 of 2008 -4- 1119 of 2007 regarding non compliance of order dated 17.11.2005, Annexure P/1 of this Court. COCP NO. 286 of 2008 was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 26.5.2008 and other two contempt petitions were dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 11.11.2008 and 7.8.2007 respectively. In view thereof also, no further action is required to be taken in the instant petition. To be fair to the learned counsel for the petitioner, he submitted that the petitioner has already filed petition for special leave to appeal against order dated 26.5.2008 whereby COCP NO. 286 of 2008 was dismissed. However, obviously the instant order shall have no bearing on the merits of the said case. In addition to the aforesaid, dismissal of COCP No. 1119 of 2007 vide order dated 7.8.2007 was concealed in the instant petition which was filed much thereafter. For the reasons aforesaid, I find no merit in the instant petition which is completely misconceived and an attempt to involve all the family members of the complaint respondent no. 7 in order to avoid prosecution in the FIR which was lodged by respondent no. 7. Respondent nos. 8 to 10 had nothing to do with the FIR or the inquiry which was to be conducted on the representation of the petitioner, but inspite thereof, respondent nos. 8 to 10 have also been implicated. In view of the aforesaid, the instant petition is accordingly dismissed being without any merit. ( L. N. Mittal ) October 12, 2009 Judge 'dalbir'