Crl.Misc.No.M-8223 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl.Misc.No.M-8223 of 2008 Date of decision: 25.9.2009 Manjit Kaur ... Petitioner versus State of Punjab and others ... Respondents CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JORA SINGH. Present: Mr.B.S.Thind, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.P.S.Sidhu, Addl.AG, Punjab. Mr.P.S.Bajwa, Advocate, for respondents No.2 and 3. Mr.Sukant Gupta, APP, for UT, Chandigarh. ... JORA SINGH, J. By this common order, I propose to dispose of Crl.Misc.M-8223 of 2008 (Manjit Kaur versus State of Punjab and others) and Crl.Misc.No.M-49828 of 2007 (Manjit Kaur versus Chandigarh Administration, Chandigarh, and others). Manjit Kaur filed Crl.Misc.M-8223 of 2008 titled as Manjit Kaur versus State of Punjab and others under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing/setting aside of enquiry report (Annexure P-1) conducted by Senior Superintendent of Police, Fatehgarh Sahib, respondent No.2, submitted to Inspector General of Police, Patiala Zone-I, Patiala, vide letter No.179 PC dated 20.1.2008, on the application dated 21.8.2007 of Rajinder Singh son of Gurbachan Singh, r/o House No.323, Model Town, Ludhiana, and application dated 4.12.2007 filed by the petitioner. FIR No.215 dated 28.5.2007 under Sections 376/506 IPC , PS Crl.Misc.No.M-8223 of 2008 2 Sector 34, Chandigarh, was registered against Narinder Singh. Case is pending in the Court. The petitioner was raped on 28.5.2007 by Narinder Singh. There is an enquiry report (Annexure P-1) by respondent No.2. Statement of the petitioner was recorded by the trial Court. The accused has close links in the political circle of Punjab and the police. The accused has friendly relations with Mr. Harish Dhanda, a sitting MLA. The accused has manoeuvred enquiry report through SSP, Fatehgarh Sahib, for involving the petitioner and her family members/prosecution witnesses in some false cases. The petitioner also filed Crl.Misc.No.M-49828 of 2007 titled as Manjit Kaur versus Chandigarh Administration, Chandigarh, and others. Copy of enquiry report (Annexure P-1) was obtained under the provisions of Right to Information Act, but the enquiry report is wrong, illegal and without jurisdiction, and is liable to be set aside. Notice of motion was issued to the respondents. Respondents No.1 to 3 filed reply separately. Affidavits and counter affidavits of Shri Nilabh Kishore, at present Superintendent of Police, CBI, Dehradun, and Shri M.K.Tiwari, Inspector General of Police, were filed in Court and the same were taken on record. As per counter affidavits, Chandigarh police has not taken enquiry report (Annexure P-1) into consideration in the rape case. Learned counsel appearing for UT, Chandigarh, stated before the Court on 29.9.2008 that challan has been presented. Witnesses have already been examined and cross-examined, and the prosecution is not placing any reliance on the enquiry conducted by the Punjab police. Crl.Misc.No.M-8223 of 2008 3 Learned counsel for the petitioner states that challan is pending. Narinder Singh is facing trial, but Narinder Singh managed to get enquiry report to wriggle out of the State case registered at the instance of petitioner Manjit Kaur. Offence was committed at Chandigarh, so Punjab police had no authority to hold an enquiry. Learned counsel for the respondents states that challan is pending and the witnesses are being produced. The prosecution is not going to place any reliance on the enquiry report (Annexure P-1). As per petition, FIR No.215 dated 28.5.2007 under Sections 376/506 IPC was registered against Narinder Singh. After completion of investigation, challan was presented in Court. Prosecution witnesses are being produced and cross-examined. The prosecution is not placing any reliance on the enquiry report submitted by SSP, Fatehgarh Sahib. In view of the counter affidavits of Enquiry Officer and Mr. M.K.Tiwari, Inspector General of Police, prosecution is not placing any reliance on the enquiry report. Mr.Anupam Gupta, Advocate, appeared on behalf of UT, Chandigarh, on 29.9.2008, and stated that challan has been presented and witnesses have already been examined and cross-examined. They have not placed any reliance on the enquiry report conducted by the Punjab police. In view of the counter affidavits of Enquiry Officer and Inspector General of Police, coupled with the statement of Mr. Anupam Gupta, learned counsel for UT, Chandigarh, prosecution is not placing any repliance on the enquiry report. State case at the instance of the petitioner is to be decided in view of the evidence led by the prosecution in the presence of the accused. In view of the enquiry report, the accused is not to be Crl.Misc.No.M-8223 of 2008 4 acquitted. In case the accused examines the Enquiry Officer to exhibit the enquiry report, then prosecution and the petitioner are to get opportunity to cross-examine the Enquiry Officer. In the eyes of law, enquiry report has no value. Evidence produced by the prosecution in the presence of the accused is to be scrutinized to opine as to whether crime was committed by the accused or not as per the allegations of the petitioner. In the light of above discussion, both the petitions are dismissed. 25.9.2009 ( JORA SINGH ) pk JUDGE