Criminal Misc. No.M-10944 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No.M-10944 of 2008(O&M) Date of decision: 15.02.2012 Karamjit Kaur … Petitioners Versus State of Punjab … Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR Present: Mr. M.K. Garg, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Palwinder Singh, Sr. DAG, Punjab for the respondent. ... M ehinder S ingh S ullar, J. (Oral) 1. The crux of the facts culminating in the commencement, relevant for disposal of the instant petition and emanating from the record, is that Kewal Singh husband of the petitioner - complainant Karamjit Kaur (for brevity the complainant) was the owner of land in question. After his death, the mutation of inheritance was to be sanctioned in favour of his legal heirs in natural succession. She approached Gurmail Singh, Patwari to enter the mutation. He demanded Rs.40,000 - Rs.50,000/- from her as bribe to get the mutation sanctioned in their favour. She was stated to have already paid Rs.45,000/- as bribe to him by selling part of her land to one Hardayal Singh son of Buta Singh. According to the complainant that on 16.10.2003, she met the accused Gurmail Singh, Patwari and asked him to supply copy of Jamabandi of the land. He again demanded Rs.800/- as illegal gratification for the supply of copy of Jamabandi. However, she said that she has already paid Rs.45,000/- to him and being a poor lady she is unable to pay more bribe but in vain. Ultimately the deal was struck at Rs.500/- for the Criminal Misc. No.M-10944 of 2008 2 supply of copy of Jamabandi. 2. The case of the complainant further proceeds that on 17.10.2003, she along with PW Harjinder Singh went to the office of the Vigilance Bureau and reported the matter to the police. Thereafter trap was laid and Gurmail Singh, Patwari was caught red handed while accepting Rs.500/- as bribe from the complainant, which were later on handed over to Gurmeet Singh, Chowkidar. The accused were arrested at the spot after completion of all the requisite formalities. In the background of these allegations, a criminal case was registered against the accused Gurmail Singh, Patwari and Gurmeet Singh, Chowkidar by way of FIR No.71 dated 17.10.2003 for the commission of offence punishable under Sections 7 and 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). 3. Thereafter completion of the investigation, the Investigating Agency collected the evidence and submitted challan/final police report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. and the accused were put on trial. Ultimately, after extending the benefit/shadow of reasonable doubt, the accused were acquitted by the Special Judge, Moga vide judgement of acquittal dated 7.4.2007 (Annexure P-2). After the acquittal of the accused, the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance, Moga, prepared the report and ordered the initiation of criminal proceedings against the complainant under Section 182 IPC vide impugned Calendar (Annexure P-3). 4. The petitioner did not feel satisfied with the initiation of criminal prosecution and preferred the instant petition challenging the impugned Calendar (Annexure P-3) invoking the provisions of Section 482 Cr.P.C.. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, having gone through the record with their valuable assistance and after bestowal of thoughts over the entire matter, to my mind, this petition deserves to be accepted in this context. 6. Above being the position on record, now the short and significant Criminal Misc. No.M-10944 of 2008 3 question, though important that arises for determination, in this case is as to whether proceedings under Section 182 IPC can be initiated against the complainant, in view of acquittal of the accused, in the main case. 7. Having regard to the rival contentions of learned counsel for the parties, to me the answer must obviously be in the negative. 8. As is evident from the record that in the wake of the complaint of the complainant Karamjit Kaur, the criminal case was registered against the accused Gurmail Singh, Patwari and Gurmeet Singh, Chowkidar by means of FIR No. 71 dated 17.10.2003 for the commission of offence punishable under Sections 7 and 13(2) of the Act. A trap was laid and the accused were found accepting bribe from the complainant at the spot. The bribe money was recovered from them. During the course of further inquiry, the police collected the evidence and after completion of the investigation, it submitted the final police report/challan under Section 173 Cr.P.C. in the Court. The trial Judge considering prima-facie evidence in the case to be true framed the charges against the accused for the commission of indicated offence and slated the case for evidence of the prosecution. 9. Sequelly the prosecution in order to substantiate the charges framed against the accused, examined as many as 8 witnesses, including PW2 Karamjit Kaur (who supported the prosecution case in its entirety) besides producing documentary evidence. Having completed all the codal formalities, the trial was concluded. However, after extending the benefit/shadow of reasonable doubt, the accused were acquitted by the Special Judge by virtue of judgement of acquittal (Annexure P-2). It is also not a matter of dispute that Criminal Appeal No.2312- SB of 2008 filed by the State against the judgement of acquittal (Annexure P-2) stands already admitted by this Court. 10. In that eventuality, it cannot possibly be saith that the information given by the complainant was false owing to the subsequent acquittal of the Criminal Misc. No.M-10944 of 2008 4 accused in the main case so as to prosecute her under Section 182 IPC, particularly when the judgement of acquittal is still subject matter of Criminal Appeal No.2312-SB of 2008, which already stands admitted in this Court. Moreover, Section 182 IPC postulates that whoever gives to any public servant any information which he knows or believes to be false, shall be punished with an imprisonment for either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine, which may extend to Rs.1000/-, or with both. Meaning thereby, all the essential ingredients of the offence under Section 182 IPC are deeply lacking in the present case. 11. There is another aspect of the matter which can be viewed from altogether a different angle. The maximum sentence provided under Section 182 IPC is for a term, which may extend to six months, or with fine, which may extend to Rs.1,000/-, or with both. 12. Likewise, Section 468 Cr.P.C. posits that no Court shall take cognizance of an offence beyond the period of limitation of one year if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year. Meaning thereby, cognizance of the indicated offence dated 17.10.2003 under Section 182 IPC against the petitioner is otherwise barred by limitation as contemplated under Section 468 Cr.P.C.. 13. Thus, seen from any angle, to my mind, the initiation of proceedings under Section 182 IPC against the petitioner vide impugned Calendar (Annexure P-3) and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are sheer misuse of the process of law. If such like illegal proceedings are allowed to continue then it will inculcate and perpetuate injustice to the case of the petitioner. Such proceedings being misuse of process of law are not only illegal but without jurisdiction as well and deserve to be quashed in the obtaining circumstances of the case. 14. In the light of the aforesaid reasons, the instant petition is accepted. The impugned Calendar (Annexure P-3) and all subsequent proceedings arising Criminal Misc. No.M-10944 of 2008 5 therefrom including the charge-sheet (Annexure P-4) are hereby quashed. The petitioner is acquitted from the indicated criminal charges framed against her. Needless to mention that the compliance and natural consequences of the order will follow accordingly. ( Mehinder Singh Sullar ) JUDGE 15.02.2012 sk