IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl.Revision No. 912 of 2009 Date of decision: 24.5.2010 Balbir Singh and others ......Petitioners Vs. State of Punjab ...Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY. PRESENT: Mr.A.P.Setia, Advocate, for Mr.Sanjay Kaushal, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr.Baljinder Singh Sra, Addl.A.G.Punjab. Mr.Arun Takhi, Advocate, for the complainant. **** ORDER The present revision petition has been filed against order dated 6.1.2009 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Hoshiarpur, in framing of charge against the petitioners under Sections 115 /120-B IPC in criminal case arising out of FIR No. 185 dated 13.10.2002 registered at Police Station Mahilpur. While issuing notice of motion on 15.4.2009, the following contention was raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner: “ Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in an inquiry conducted by Superintendent of Police/Headquarters, Hoshiarpur (Annexure P-3), petitioners were found innocent Crl.Revision No. 912 of 2009 [2] and a cancellation report was also submitted.” Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that no offence is made out against the petitioners and they have been falsely implicated in the case due to party faction in the village. A detailed inquiry was conducted by Superintendent of Police /Headquarters, Hoshiarpur and nothing was found against the petitioners. Accused Harjinder Singh alias Jinder or anyone of his family members had no criminal record to come to conclusion that he was to kill Jaspal Singh. Even recording of cassette was disbelieved. Learned counsel for the petitioners also submits that continuation of proceedings would be an abuse of the process of law as the allegations in the FIR cannot be proved in the court of law. On the basis of inquiry conducted by SP Headquarters, Hoshiapur, DSP Gurdaspur was directed to get the instant FIR cancelled and initiate proceedings under Section 182 Cr.P.C. against Jaspal Singh complainant. The learned trial Court has not taken into consideration the facts of the case and charge has been framed against the petitioners inspite of approval granted for cancellation of report. Learned counsel for the petitioners also submits that the relations between both the parties were inimical due to party faction in the village. Mr.Sra, learned counsel for the State submits that on the basis of inquiry conducted by Internal Vigilance Cell, Chandigarh the petitioners were found to have committed offence as mentioned in the FIR but in the inquiry conducted by S.P.Headquarters, Hoshiarpur, the petitioners were found innocent and cancellation report was prepared by the police of Crl.Revision No. 912 of 2009 [3] Police Station Mahilpur. The said cancellation report was not presented in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Hoshiarpur. Petitioners were found guilty of commission of offence as mentioned in the FIR. Learned counsel for the State also brought to the notice of the Court that only on the basis of wrong statement made by the learned counsel for the petitioners, notice of motion was issued whereas the cancellation report was not presented in the Court. It was only approved by the higher authorities. Subsequently, an inquiry was conducted by A.D.G.P. Internal Vigilance -cum- Human Rights Commission, Punjab and in the detailed inquiry, the petitioners were found to have committed the offence. As per opinion of Joint Director, Prosecution and Litigation Department, Punjab, Chandigarh, there was ample evidence on record both oral as well as documentary, besides confessional statements and strong motive of enmity to make out a prima facie case challaning the accused-petitioners. Later on, the challan was presented in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class and the same was committed to the Court of learned Sessions Judge for trial. The charge has been framed against the petitioners by the trial Court which is subject-matter of challenge in the present petition. Notice of motion was issued only on the statement of learned counsel for the petitioners that charge has been framed in spite of presentation of cancellation report whereas no such cancellation report was presented in the Court. Although the petitioners were found innocent in the inquiry conducted by SP Headquarters but subsequently on the application submitted by the complainant, a detailed inquiry was conducted by ADGP Internal Vigilance - cum- Human Rights Commission, Punjab Crl.Revision No. 912 of 2009 [4] which was sent for opinion of the Joint Director Prosecution and the Litigation Department, Punjab who opined that there was ample evidence on record to make out a prima case against the accused-petitioners. On the basis of inquiry conducted by ADGP as well as the opinion given by Joint Director Prosecution, the petitioners were found guilty of committing the offence as mentioned in the FIR. However, the petitioners were found innocent in the inquiry conducted by SP Headquarters and cancellation report was also prepared by the police but the same was not presented in the Court of learned JMIC, Hoshiarpur. Learned counsel for the petitioners made a wrong statement before the Court and because of that reason, notice of motion was issued. This argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners, on the face of it, is contrary to the facts of the case whereas no cancellation report was presented in the Court and the present petition is also liable to be dismissed only on the ground of concealment of facts and misrepresentation by the learned counsel for the petitioners. Keeping in view the facts mentioned above, there is no merit in the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners and the petition being devoid of any merit is dismissed. (DAYA CHAUDHARY) JUDGE 24.5.2010. raghav