CRM No. M 3540 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -- CRM No. M 3540 of 2010 Date of decision: 29.03.2011 Sarbjit Singh ........ Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others .......Respondent(s) Coram: Hon'ble Ms Justice Nirmaljit Kaur -.- Present: Mr. Tapas Sharma , Advocate for the petitioner (s) Mr. K S Pannu, DAG, Punjab Mr. Ranjit Sharma, Advocate -.- 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Nirmaljit Kaur, J. (Oral) This is a petition under 482 Cr.P.C for issuance of direction to the concerned authorities not to hold repeated enquiries in case FIR No. 145 dated 28.06.2009 under Section 324, 452, 34 IPC, registered at P S City Tarn Taran, District Tarn Taran as holding of such repeated enquires is not in compliance with the law laid down this Hon'ble Court and further as already detailed investigations by the investigating officer and two subsequent enquiries by two Senior Officers have already been conducted and concluded. CRM No. M 3540 of 2010 2 Learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that the investigation was conducted by the SHO, Police Station City Tarn Taran. As per the said investigation, offence under Sections 324, 452, 34 IPC were made out against the accused. However, respondents-accused managed to get the inquiry marked to SP Head Quarter, Tarn Taran, who after conducting the inquiry found that the allegations as alleged in the FIR were made out. Thereafter, a third inquiry was marked to the SP Head Quarter, Majitha, who vide his inquiry report dated 30.10.2009 still found the accused guilty of the said offence and recommended the filing of the challan under the said Sections. The respondents-accused, thereafter, managed to get the inquiry marked once again. This time, the same Officer who had earlier conducted the inquiry is stated to have taken a somersault and submitted his report, stating therein, that the offence under Section 452 IPC was not proved against the accused. Certain discrepancies were pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Accordingly, Shri Amrik Singh, SP Headquarter, Majitha was directed to be present in the Court on the next date of hearing vide order dated 22.02.2011. In pursuance to the same, Shri Amrik Singh SP Headquarter, Majitha is present in Court today. Mr. K S Pannu, DAG, Punjab, does not dispute that the last two reports were given by Shri Amrik Singh, SP Headquarter, Majitha. It is further contended that the first report was on the basis of report given by the earlier officers, whereas, the second report was given on the basis of spot inspection. CRM No. M 3540 of 2010 3 Learned counsel for the petitioner has brought to the notice of this Court the order dated 12.01.2009 passed by this Court in CRM M 18244 of 2008, in which, the order dated 01.04.2008 passed by the Director General of Police, Punjab, Chandigarh has been produced. The said order is reproduced below:- “It has come to light that enquiries are being got conducted by the applicant’s side or opposite side by giving various applications. In this connection, on one application or case, various enquiries are got conducted from the officers of the district or from the higher officers of outside districts. For this, tension between the general public is being increased and they always try in getting reports in their favour. Keeping this experience, reports are given against one another which affect the case. The senior officers face difficulty in finding out the truth and giving independent decision. So, in future concerning one application or case, only enquiry be conducted by the concerned officers of the district which should be complete on the basis of proofs. In case on any application or case, the enquiry is to be got conducted from the higher officers of outside district/ Range, then the case be sent for further enquiry after approval of the undersigned or Punjab Government. Strict compliance be made. Sd/- Director General, Police, Punjab, Chandigarh” Accordingly, the matter is ordered to be placed before the Director General of Police, Punjab, Chandigarh to look into the regularity, irregularity of the number of enquiries held in the present case as also the CRM No. M 3540 of 2010 4 two contradictory reports by same officer and take appropriate action in accordance with law, if so required. Meanwhile, taking into account that two contradictory reports have been submitted by Shri Amrik Singh, SP Headquarter, Majitha and the challan has been filed on the basis of second report i.e by deleting the offence under Section 452 IPC, the interest of justice would be met, if a direction is issued to the trial Court to take into consideration both the reports and arrive at an independent opinion before framing charge. Disposed of in the above terms. The said order be brought to the notice of the Director General of Police, Punjab Chandigarh. A copy of the order be supplied to the learned State counsel under the signatures of the Reader attached to this Court, for its necessary compliance. (Nirmaljit Kaur) Judge 29.03.2011 mohan