IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M-20058 of 2009 (O/M) Date of Decision: 26.11.2009 Ram Phool ...Petitioner Vs. State of Haryana ...Respondent CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Augustine George Masih Present: Mr. S.S. Duhan, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Y.P. Malik, AAG, Haryana. *** Augustine George Masih, J(Oral) Prayer in the present petition is for quashing of FIR 197 dated 26.9.2008 under Section 3 of the Prevention of Damages to Public Property Act 1984 and Section 58-A of the Haryana Canal Drainage Act 1974 registered at Police Station Sadar, Narwana and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom. Counsel for the petitioner states that perusal of the FIR would show that no offence is made out against the petitioner. He has further placed reliance on the report submitted under Section 173 Cr.P.C. He on the basis of the said report further submits that nothing is there on record, which would implicate the petitioner or would show his involvement for commission of the offence for which challan has been presented against him. Upon notice of motion having been issued reply to the petition has been filed by the State of Haryana. Counsel for the State relying upon the reply submit that the allegations against the petitioner were found therefore, the challan was presented before trial court. However, on being Crl. Misc. No. M-20058 of 2009 (O/M) -2- asked to justify the comission of the alleged offences as per the provisions for which the petitioner has been challaned. Counsel for the petitioner is unable to respond thereto nor has any explanation. On going through the records, perusing of the FIR as also the challan, which have been presented,the same does not indicate as to how the petitioner is owner of the JCM Network Safidon Gate, Jind. There is nothing in the record showing the involvement or the commission of the offence by the petitioner for which he has been challaned. On the last date of hearing the Investigating Officer, who had prepared the challan and submitted the same before the Court was summoned. ASI Mohinder Singh, Police Station Sadar Nirwana is present in the Court, who states that the Investigating Officer at that moment stands transferred. However, on the basis of the record he submits that there is no evidence on record, either documentary or oral to connect the petitioner with the commission of the offence. In view of the above position continuing the proceedings in the impugned FIR would be abuse of process of Court. A responsibility under the statute has been given to the Investigating Agency to investigate the matter and if some cognizable offence is found to have been committed by the accused and some substance or evidence is found which is sufficient to prosecute an accused, it has been authorised to send the accused to Court to face trial. This does not give licence to the prosecuting Agency to harass and put innocent people in such a position, where they have to face the proceedings before the trial court unnecessarily. This is one of such cases, where the State machinery has put an innocent citizen to harassment and has Crl. Misc. No. M-20058 of 2009 (O/M) -3- forced him initially to appear before the trial court and thereafter to approach this Court. Keeping in view the totallity of the facts and circumstances, the present petition is allowed as not offence against the petitioner is prima facie found to have been committed. FIR 197 dated 26.9.2008 under Section 3 of the Prevention of Damages to Public Property Act 1984 and Section 58-A of the Haryana Canal Drainage Act 1974 is hereby quashed. The State is directed to pay 2,000/- costs to the petitioner within a period of two months from today. November 26, 2009 (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH) poonam-II JUDGE