CRIMINAL REVISION NO.602 OF 2008 :{ 1 }: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION: December 01, 2008 Avtar Singh .....Petitioner VERSUS State of Punjab ....Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? PRESENT: Mr. Sanjay Kaushal, Advocate, for the petitioner. (in both the petitions). Mr. A. S. Brar, DAG, Punjab, for the State. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. This order will dispose of two Criminal Revision Nos.602 of 2008 (Avtar Singh Vs. State of Punjab) and 2443 of 2008 (Gulshan Rai Vs. State of Punjab). Different petitioners in these two petitions have approached this Court for impugning the action of the Court in framing charge against them under Section 409, 467, 468, 471 IPC and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of corruption CRIMINAL REVISION NO.602 OF 2008 :{ 2 }: Act, 1988 (for short, “the Act”). Avtar Singh, petitioner in Criminal Revision No.602 of 2008 was duly elected Sarpanch of the village from 1998 to 2003. It is stated that there is intense political revelry in the village, due to which number of civil suits and criminal complaints are filed. The present FIR, leading to framing of charge against the petitioners, is stated to be a counter blast to an earlier FIR No.109, which the petitioners had lodged against the complainant. Counsel for the petitioners would refer to the Civil Writ Petition earlier filed by Jogi Ram, complainant, making number of allegations which was dismissed, being wholly misconceived. He had filed yet again another writ petition, seeking enquiry against the present petitioners but the same was also dismissed. The complainant has now become the Sarpanch of the village and is in possession of the entire record. On an application moved by him to the Vigilance Bureau, the present FIR has been registered against the petitioners. Relying upon the dismissal of writ petition and the enquiries conducted by D.D.P.O, Hoshiarpur, who found the allegations against the petitioners to be false, which were accepted by the State while filing reply to the writ petitions filed earlier, seeking action against the petitioners, the order framing the charge is impugned. The main grouse of the petitioners is that these enquiries are forming part of the investigation report submitted to the Court under Section 173 Cr.P.C. but have not been taken into consideration at the time of framing of charge. Had it been done, the counsel claims, this Court would not have framed the charge against CRIMINAL REVISION NO.602 OF 2008 :{ 3 }: the petitioners. Learned counsel has referred to enquiry report, Annexure P-2, held by District Development and Panchayat Officer, Hoshiarpur and the order passed in the writ petition, Annexure P-3 in support of his pleas. At the time of framing charge, what is required to be seen is the prima-facie nature of the evidence collected by the investigation agency. The order passed in the writ petition and the enquiries held ultimately may be relevant for the defence of the petitioners. These may have been accepted by the Government but they are required to be proved before the Court, which would then take these into consideration before passing any appropriate order. It may be that the allegations which are made against the petitioners were the one which were raised in the writ petition. Apparently, the writ petition was dismissed as infructuous by noticing that allegations against the petitioner, who was respondent in the writ petition, had been enquired into. Now the challan, after investigation, has been presented and charge is framed. Merely because some earlier enquiries were held would not be enough to interfere in the order framing the charge. The petitioners would be at liberty to raise all these pleas before the Trial Court and these would accordingly be considered in accordance with law if otherwise permissible. No case for quashing the charge is made out. Hence, both the petitions are dismissed. December 01 , 2008 ( RANJIT SINGH ) khurmi JUDGE CRIMINAL REVISION NO.602 OF 2008 :{ 4 }: