Crl.Misc.No.M-17635 of 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl.Misc.No.M-17635 of 2009 Date of Decision:- 03.11.2009 Mahesh Kumar and others ....Petitioner(s) vs. State of Haryana and another ....Respondent(s) *** CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH *** Present:- Mr.V.B.Aggarwal, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr.Ashok Kumar Jindal, AAG, Haryana, for respondent No.1. *** AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. The present petition is for quashing of the supplementary challan dated 23.4.2006 (Annexure P-8) filed in F.I.R.No.341 dated 28.4.1998 under Sections 332/353/186/342/506/34 IPC registered at Police Station City Thanesar District Kurukshetra and all further proceedings arising therefrom. Counsel for the petitioners contends that the above-mentioned FIR was registered against the petitioners wherein charge was framed against them vide order dated 10.5.2000 passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Kurukshetra under Sections 323/353/186/342/506 IPC. The said order was challenged by way of Crl.Rev.No.1186 of 2000 Davinder Kumar vs.State of Haryana. The said revision petition was allowed by this Court vide order dated 24.8.2005 (Annexure P-4) which reads as Crl.Misc.No.M-17635 of 2009 -2- follows:- “On 3.8.2005, following order was passed;- “Only contention raised is that Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure debars taking of cognizance except on a complaint to the court by the public servant. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies on judgments of this court in Bhagat Ram v. The State of Punjab, 1991 (2) CLR 100 and Jagtar Singh v. Union Territory, Chandigarh, 1996 (1) RCR 669. Learned counsel for the State disputes the proposition and seeks time to examine the said judgments. List again on 24.8.2005.” Learned counsel for the State says that he does not dispute the proposition and applicability of the judgments relied upon but his prayer is that the public servant concerned should be at liberty to file a complaint in accordance with law. Learned counsel for the petitioner has no objection to such liberty being given to the concerned person. Accordingly, while quashing the proceedings it is directed that the public servant will be at liberty to file a complaint in accordance with law. Petition is disposed of.” He submits that in pursuance to the above order passed by this Court in Crl.Rev.No.1186 of 2000, the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ist Crl.Misc.No.M-17635 of 2009 -3- Class, Kurukshetra, vide its order dated 21.4.2006 (Annexure P-5) discharged all the accused in the FIR. The said order was challenged by the State in this Court vide Crl.Rev.No.2148 of 2006 (State of Haryana vs. Dinesh Kumar and others) which was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 23.9.2008 (Annexure P-7). He, on this basis, submits that the presentation of the supplementary challan (Annexure P-8) by the State is an abuse of process of law after the discharge of the petitioners by the Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Thanesar vide order dated 21.4.2006 which has been upheld by this Court vide order dated 23.9.2008. The proceedings before the trial Court in the supplementary challan would be hit by the provisions of Article 21 of the Constitution of India as it would amount to double jeopardy. On this basis, he prays for quashing of the supplementary challan (Annexure P-8) so presented by the State. Counsel for the State, on the other hand, contends that vide order dated 24.8.2005 (Annexure P-4) this Court had granted liberty to the State and the public servant concerned to file a complaint in accordance with law. The said complaint under Section 195 Cr.P.C. has been preferred and the same is pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kurukshetra. He submits that on presentation of the supplementary challan in FIR No.341 dated 28.4.1998 the same has been ordered to be clubbed along with the complaint preferred by the public servant. The said order has not been challenged by the petitioners. He contends that the supplementary challan, therefore, cannot be quashed by this Court. His further submission is that this Court did not quash the FIR vide order dated 24.8.2005 and the same continued to exist and, therefore, the presentation of the supplementary Crl.Misc.No.M-17635 of 2009 -4- challan in the said FIR is in accordance with law. I have heard counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the case. The factual assertion as has been put-forth by the counsel for the petitioners clearly spells out that on framing of the charge against the petitioners in FIR No.341 dated 28.4.1998, vide order dated 10.5.2000 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Kurukshetra, the same was challenged vide Crl.Rev.No.1186 of 2000 which was allowed by this Court vide order dated 24.8.2005. In pursuance to said order passed by this Court, the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Kurukshetra, discharged not only the petitioner in the criminal revision but all the other accused vide order dated 21.4.2006. The said order was challenged in Crl.Rev.No.2148 of 2006 titled as State of Haryana vs. Dinesh Kumar and others, and this Court vide order dated 23.9.2008 (Annexure P-7) upheld the same and dismissed the revision petition preferred by the State. The result thereof was the petitioners' discharge in FIR No.341 dated 28.4.1998. After the discharge of the petitioners, it cannot be said that the supplementary challan could have been presented in the said FIR as it would amount to double jeopardy and would be hit by the provisions of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. A person who has been earlier tried for an offence and has been discharged by the Court which order stood upheld by this Court, would not give a liberty to the State to file a supplementary challan in the same very FIR on the basis of the same material so collected by them which ultimately led to the discharge of the petitioners. That being so, the presentation of the supplementary challan cannot be sustained. Crl.Misc.No.M-17635 of 2009 -5- That apart, it is not in dispute that as per the liberty granted by this Court vide order dated 24.8.2005, the concerned public servant has preferred a complaint under Section 195 Cr.P.C. against the petitioners. Further, it is not in dispute that the said complaint is pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kurukshetra wherein the petitioners are being tried. The contention of the counsel for the State that the petitioners have not challenged the order dated 9.6.2006 vide which the supplementary challan presented by the State was clubbed up, to be taken up along with the complaint preferred by the public servant under Section 195 Cr.P.C., also does not hold ground for the reason that after the discharge of the accused, there were no proceedings pending which would give any power to the police to file a supplementary challan against the petitioners. In view of the above, the present petition is allowed. The supplementary challan dated 23.4.2006 (Annexure P-8) filed by the Police in FIR No.341 dated 28.4.1998 is hereby quashed. November 03, 2009 ( AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH ) poonam JUDGE