1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. 18186-M of 2009. Date of Decision: 14.7.2009 *** Mohd. Ismail & Anr. .. Petitioners Vs. State of Punjab & Anr. .. Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR, Present:- Mr. B.S. Bhasaur, Advocate for the petitioners. *** ARVIND KUMAR, J. The petitioners are seeking quashing of final report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. filed in case FIR No. 165 dated 7.9.2005, under Sections 307, 323, 506, 498-A, 406, 120-B IPC, Police Station Malerkotla and subsequent proceedings taken therein, to their extent, including order and the charge sheet dated 18.5.2009 and 23.5.2009 respectively. It is apt to mention here that respondent No.2 Nazira preferred a Crl. Misc. No. 3860-M of 2004 before this Court and sought directions to the official respondents to register a case under various Sections of Indian Penal Code against her husband Umardin, his brother Mohd. Ismail and Bholi Ismail wife of Mohd. Ismail. This Court while hearing the matter, disposed of the same by directing the police to register a case against the husband Umardin and then investigate the matter in accordance with law. Accordingly, aforesaid FIR No. 165 dated 7.9.2005was registered and investigated upon. It emerges out from the record that after investigation, the police also found complicity of the present petitioners in the commission of offence and thus, booked them in the said FIR and consequently filed final report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. against Umardin, and the present petitioners namely Mohd. Ismail and Bholi Ismail. After committal proceedings, the trial court prima facie finding commission of 2 offences under Sections 307, 323, 406, 498-A, 506 read with Section 120-B IPC by the accused, vide order dated 18.5.2009, ordered for framing of charges under the aforesaid Sections against the accused, which were accordingly framed vide charge sheet dated 23.5.2009. Aggrieved with the same, the instant petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been preferred by the petitioners. The very basis of the quashing of the final report as well as subsequent proceedings is that, this Court while dealing Crl. Misc. No. 3860-M of 2004 directed for the registration of a case against Umardin, the husband only, despite the fact that in the said petition the names of the present petitioners were also mentioned and hence the registration and prosecution of case against the present petitioners is totally over-riding the orders passed by this Court. The argument is not tenable. The tenor and manner of the order dated 13.5.2005 clearly speaks about registration of FIR against Umardin, but the investigating agency was specifically directed to investigate the matter after registration of the case. Needless to record that investigation of an offence is within the exclusive domain of the police department and not the law courts. In the event of disclosure of an offence, it is a duty incumbent to investigate into offence and bring the offender to books in order to serve the cause of justice and it is only thereafter the Investigating Officer submits the report to the Court with a prayer to take cognizance of the offence under S. 190 of the Cr. P.C. There is thus a clear and well defined area of operation and demarcated function in the field of investigation of crimes and its subsequent adjudication. Thus, in the facts and circumstances of the case, it cannot be said that present petitioners were exonerated and the investigating agency was restricted to probe into the offence only against Umardin. The investigating agency cannot shut its eyes, if on investigation, involvement of some other accused in the commission of offence is found. In the instant case the order passed by the learned trial court qua framing of charges against the petitioners is a well written order. The order not only refers to the statements recorded by the police during investigation which led to the filing of final report by the police but also sets out with clarity the principles required to be kept in mind at the stage of 3 reaching a prima facie view. The plea that the petitioners have been involved as a result of vindictiveness of the complainant is not relevant at this stage. The petitioners would have adequate opportunity to raise all pleas available to them in law before the trial Court at an appropriate stage. There is no merit in the instant petition, which is accordingly dismissed in limine. However, whatever has been said hereinabove is without prejudice to the merits of the case. (ARVIND KUMAR) JUDGE July 14,2009 Jiten