IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No. M-1044 of 2009 Date of decision : November 25, 2009 Sheo Pal Singh ....Petitioner versus State of Haryana and others ....Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice L.N. Mittal Present : Mr. NS Shekhawat, Advocate, for the petitioner Mr. Sidharth Sarup, AAG Haryana for respondent no. 1 None for respondent nos. 2 and 3 L.N. Mittal, J. (Oral) Complainant Sheo Pal Singh has filed this petition under section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure (in short, Cr.P.C. ) assailing order dated 25.11.2008, Annexure P/1, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Narnaul, thereby disposing of application filed by the prosecution under section 311 Cr.P.C. By way of said application, the prosecution wanted to examine Mr. Ved Parkash Godara, Additional Superintendent of Police, Rewari as witness and wanted to prove his inquiry report Annexure P/2. This part of the application has been disallowed vide impugned order. However, prosecution prayer for production of jamabandi and girdawari has been allowed. Criminal Misc. No. M-1044 of 2009 -2- I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. After investigation of the FIR, cancellation report was prepared in the case. However, on the request of petitioner-complainant inquiry was entrusted to Additional Superintendent of Police, Rewari, who submitted his report dated 20.1.2007, Annexure P/2. Concluding paragraph of the said report is reproduced hereunder:- “From the perusal of the file of case No. 296/06 of Police Station Mahendergarh and from my enquiry, there are no reasons to have any doubt of any kind in the statement of Sheo Pal. The circumstances after the occurrence also support the statement of Sheo Pal and there are no reasons to disbelieve the statement of other witnesses. As it has been mentioned above that physical and oral evidence were not collected in the case and the same can be now collected during the investigation of the case. So from my enquiry, the facts go against Sahi Ram and Mahender sons of Sohan Lal residents of Nangal Sirohi and the allegations leveled in the First Information Report substantiated. So the re-investigation should be ordered in the case and it is recommended that necessary legal action may be taken against the aforesaid accused.” Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that examination of Mr. Ved Parkash Godara and proving his report Annexure P/2 is essential and imperative for just decision of the case. I have carefully considered the aforesaid contention. Mr. Ved Parkash Godara conducted inquiry and not investigation of the case. Secondly, Mr. Ved Parkash Godara simply Criminal Misc. No. M-1044 of 2009 -3- recorded statements of witnesses and inspected spot but did not collect any other physical evidence. Clothes etc. relevant for the decision of the case were also not seized by Mr. Ved Parkash Godara. It has been mentioned in the inquiry report that the investigating officer did not take the relevant articles into possession and the said articles had been still kept safely by the petitioner-complainant. Even Mr. Ved Parkash Godara did not take the said articles into possession. Consequently, examination of Mr. Ved Parkash Godara as witness is not required. His inquiry report is also not required to be proved for proper decision of the case because the inquiry report is based on statements of some persons recorded during inquiry and the conclusion arrived at by the inquiry officer Mr. Ved Parkash Godara. However, after trial, the court has to arrive at its own conclusion on the basis of the evidence led by the prosecution. The opinion or conclusion of the inquiry officer would be irrelevant. In addition to the aforesaid, Mr. Ved Parkash Godara simply conducted inquiry and not investigation and rather recommended re- investigation of the case. Pursuant thereto, further investigation was conducted and challan against accused respondent nos. 2 and 3 was presented instead of cancellation report which had been prepared earlier. Thus, the purpose of the inquiry report has been served as it was acted upon and after further investigation, challan was presented for prosecution of the accused. Consequently, there is no necessity of proving inquiry report when the requisite evidence has been led by the prosecution. Criminal Misc. No. M-1044 of 2009 -4- In view of the aforesaid, I find no merit in the instant petition which is accordingly dismissed. ( L.N. Mittal ) November 25, 2009 Judge 'dalbir'