IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc No. M 33529 of 2008 (O&M) Date of decision : December 18, 2009 Hardev Singh and others, ...... Petitioners (s) v. State of Punjab, ...... Respondent(s) *** CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI *** Present : Mr. P.S.Jahangir, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Mehar Deep Singh, DAG Punjab for the respondent. *** 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? *** AJAY TEWARI, J (Oral) This is a petition for quashing of case FIR No.126, dated 27.7.2006, registered under Sections 406/420 of the IPC, at Police Station Samrala, District Ludhiana. The allegations are that the petitioners had taken money from the complainant for sending him to England. Counsel for the petitioners has argued that in fact when the FIR was lodged, detailed inquiry was conducted wherein the petitioners as also other co-accused were found innocent. Thereafter, a fresh inquiry was launched as a result of which challan was filed against the petitioners. He further states that qua one of the co-accused of the petitioners, the instant FIR was quashed by this Court by orders dated 18.11.2008 passed in Crl Misc No. M.12774 of 2008, on the ground that second inquiry was shown to be absolutely sketchy and without recording statements of witnesses or taking into account any relevant facts. This Court further held as follows :- “............ The perusal of the report and conclusions drawn, indicate that the relevant facts and circumstances of the case were taken into account. It has been considered that the very purpose for taking money by the complainant was not even in existence as Rajinder Singh. Kuldeep Singh and Parminder Singh had gone abroad at various point of time. The three met each other while abroad. It has further been concluded that Rajinder Singh never paid a sum of Rs.7.00 lac to Hardev Singh in the presence of Ranjit Kaur, Paramjit Kaur, Raju and Jaspreet Kaur, at their residence at village Kubbe. It has specifically been recorded that the allegations are false. It has also been noticed by the investigating Officer that due to fear of arrest of the entire family, the accused would pay the amount and, therefore, the complaint had been lodged. Another relevant fact has been taken into account is that Paramjit Kaur was married with Sohan Singh and had been living in village Chomo Police Station, Payal, Distt. Ludhiana for the last 12 years. Jaspreet Kaur sister of Parminder Singh was unmarried. The brother of Gurminder Singh alias Raju is a student. Hardev Singh and Ranjit Kaur are aged person and failing eye-sight. Learned counsel for the respondent has not been able to justify even a single reason as to under what circumstances subsequent investigation was ordered to be conducted. Learned counsel has further not been able to indicate as to what additional material was collected in subsequent investigation which would indicate involvement of the accused in the offence, as alleged in the FIR. The facts and circumstances make it evident that the subsequent enquiry/investigation was nothing but an abuse of the process of law. No procedure provides for such re-investigation without giving reasonable reasons. The law was set in motion on registration of FIR No.126 dated 27.7.2006. The investigation report, as noticed above, was submitted to senior officers on 8.7.2007 recommending discharge of the accused including the petitioner. Clearly the subsequent investigation was illegal and not warranted in facts or in law. Once the investigation had been conducted and concluded under report Annexure P-5, the investigating agency was required to assign reasons for further investigation. None is available. The subsequent investigation at the instance of Superintendent of Police does not indicate application of mind or collection of any evidence or material. It is the admitted case of the respondent that witnesses were not examined and no material was taken into consideration while recommending filing of challan as it transpires that the challan has been presented without their being any additional material or basis. Under the circumstances continuance of proceedings against the petitioner are nothing but an abuse of the process of law and would cause harassment to the petitioner. So as to secure the ends of justice and to prevent abuse of process of Court, this petition is allowed. FIR bearing No.126 dated 27.7.2006 under Section 406, 420 IPC registered at Police Station, Samrala, Distt. Ludhiana, qua the petitioner is quashed.” In my opinion, the findings recorded by this Court in the above noted case, would be applicable with full force to the facts of the present case. Counsel for the respondent has not been able to point out any distinguishing features. Consequently, this petition is allowed and FIR No.126, dated 27.7.2006, registered under Sections 406/420 of the IPC, at Police Station Samrala, District Ludhiana, as also subsequent proceedings emanating therefrom are quashed. As the main petition has since been allowed, all the pending civil miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of. ( AJAY TEWARI ) December 18, 2009. JUDGE `kk'