Criminal Revision No.978 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Crl. Revision. No. 978 of 2010 Date of Decision: July 22, 2010 Abdul Rashid ...........Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ..........Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Sabina Present: Mr. R.P.Kansal,Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Amandeep Singh Rai, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab ** Sabina, J. This petition has been filed under Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (`Cr.P.C. in short) wherein petitioner has challenged order dated 17.3.2010 passed by the Special Judge, Patiala for summoning Karamvir Singh Sandhu as a witness under Section 311 Cr.P.C. The contents of the FIR No. 69 dated 14.10.2003 registered under Sections 7, 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short` the Act') read as under:- " Statement of Sanjay Verma S/o Sh.Suresh Kumar Verma, resident of H.No. 3077/2, Nodha Mishar near Darshani Gate, Patiala age 28 years. Stated that I am a resident of above said Criminal Revision No.978 of 2010 2 address and am Incharge of Hindi Newspaper Dainik Jagraon at Patiala. My friend Karamvir Singh Sandhu is working as a photographer for this very newspaper at main office, Jalandhar. Due to which we have intimated relations with each other. Marriage of my friend Karamvir Singh Sandhu who is a resident of Parkash Vihar, 1-Tower Enclave, Phase-2, Nakodar Road, Jalandhar was solemnized in October, 2002 with Manjit Kaur W/o Sh. Bakshish Singh, resident of 200, G-Block, Partap Nagar, Patiala. After few day of the marriage my friend's relations with his wife Manjit Kaur started getting bad. Regarding which he used to talk with me and use to remain very sad. My friend told me that his wife did not adjust herself in his family and she did not care for him as well as his parents. She use to boast about her parents all the time and from the day one she did not keep the relations as of husband and wife. More often she use to say that she will not stay here. After some time in-laws of my friend Karamvir Singh Sandhu got lodged a false case No.516 dated 28.9.2003 under Sections 406, 498-A regarding demand of dowry against my friend, his father Avtar Singh Sandhu and my friends mother Smt. Jasvir Kaur at Police Station Sadar Patiala. Investigation of this case was being carried out by ASI Abdul Rashid posted at P.S. Sadar, Patiala. He conducted raids to arrest my friend and his parents at their house in Jalanhdar. There ASI Abdul Rashid asked my friend that I will not arrest you in this case. You compromised the matter with girl side. I shall got your matter compromised. You give Rs.5 lacs to girl side and 50 Criminal Revision No.978 of 2010 3 thousand rupees to me as illegal gratification. If you would not do that then I shall take all your household items, which brings bad name to you in the society. My friend promised Abdul Rahid to perform this and took some time from him. After this my friend talked about this with me. I advised my friend that you first apply for anticipatory bails in the Courts. I am going to talk with ASI Abdul Rashid regarding money transaction. Therefore, I met Abdul Rashid at P.S. Sadar Patiala who told me to pay the girl side later on but first he should be paid Rs.50,000/-. I requested the inspector to reduce the amount who told me that not even a single paise can be taken less. I again met ASI Abdul Rashid at P.S.Sadar, Patiala on 10.10.2003 and informed him about the story on the arrest of my firend Karamavir and his family members till 13.10.2003 by the Court of Sh. P.S.Virk, ASJ Patiala. On this ASI asked whether my fees 50 thousand rupees has been brought. I shall not accept any arrest stay without taking fees. I told him that payment of money shall be paid very soon after arranging. Yesterday on 13.10.2003 I met ASI Abdul Rashid at P.S.Sadar Patiala and told that I have brought Rs.10,000/- and balance amount shall be paid soon after making arrangements. He took the thousand rupees and gave a warning to pay the balance amount till noon of 14.10.2003. I talked about this highhandedness of ASI Abdul Rashid with my friend Sh.Vijay Kapur s/o Sh. Raj Kumar Kapur, r/o 3565/2, Sarhandi Bazar, Patiala. He advised me to get this kind of corrupt police officer caught by the department of vigilance and I took my friend Criminal Revision No.978 of 2010 4 Vijay Kapur alongwith me and once again met ASI Abdul Rashid at P.S.Sadar Patiala and requested him that we have made the arrangement of Rs.15,000/- and balance amount shall be paid soon. He said that he shall be going towards police lines at around 3-3 ½ p.m. and you meet me near Punjab & Sind Bank on Passi road and rest we will talk there. I did not want to get the work of my friend Karamvir done by paying illegal gratification. Therefore, I alongwith my friend Vijay Kapur came present in your office to meet you. I present the currency notes of Rs.15,000/-. Action be taken against ASI Abdul Rashid as per lad. Claimant. Sd/-(in English) Sanjay Verma Attested Sd/- Banarsi Dass DSP Vigilance Bureaur Phase-2, Patiala. 14.10.2003” Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the application filed by the prosecution for summoning Karamvir Singh Sandhu as a witness was liable to be dismissed as the said witness was not joined during investigation. The name of the said person was also not mentioned in the list of witnesses. Learned State counsel, on the other hand, has submitted that the money in question had, in fact, been paid for settling the matrimonial dispute of Karamvir Singh Sandhu. Due to inadvertence, the name of the said person was not mentioned in the list of witnesses. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the present petition deserves to be dismissed. In the present case, the in-laws of Karamvir Singh Sandhu had lodged the FIR(No.516 dated 28.9.2003 under Sections 406,498A IPC) Criminal Revision No.978 of 2010 5 against him. Investigation in the said case was being carried out by the petitioner. The petitioner had conducted the raids qua arrest of Karamvir Singh and his family members. Thereafter, the prosecution case is that the petitioner had asked Karamvir Singh Sandhu that he would not arrest him in case he makes a compromise with the girl side. Rupees Fifty thousand were demanded as illegal gratification by the petitioner. Thus, the bribe money was allegedly paid to the petitioner for settlement of the dispute of Karamvir Singh Sandhu. In these circumstances, it would be in the interest of justice if the said person is allowed to be examined as a witness. The application has rightly not been dismissed on technical grounds by the trial Court. The impugned order,thus, does not suffer from any illegality and calls for no interference. Dismissed. (Sabina) Judge July 22, 2010 arya