IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.16390 of 2010 Date of Decision : September 14, 2010. Heera Singh .....Petitioner versus State of Punjab and others .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. Present : Mr.H.S.Batth, Advocate, for the petitioner. -.- 1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? --- Surya Kant, J. (Oral) An FIR No.189 dated 29.9.2008 under Sections 22/29 of the N.D.P.S.Act read with Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 & 120-B IPC was registered against the petitioner at Police Station Jandiala, District Amritsar. After completion of the investigation and filing of the charge- sheet, the Special Judge, Amritsar has already framed the charges against the petitioner. The prosecution evidence has also started and one prosecution witness has also been examined. Meanwhile and pending investigation, the petitioner and one of his family members represented to the police authorities alleging that Sub-Inspector Varinder Kumar of CIA Staff, Amritsar has falsely implicated the petitioner in the above-stated criminal case. Though the C.W.P.No .16390 of 2010 2 fact that the matter is sub-judice before the Special Judge at Amritsar, who alone is competent to decide about the innocence or complicity of the petitioner, the Senior Superintendent of Police (Rural), Amritsar has submitted a fact finding report exonerating the petitioner of the charges and recommending disciplinary action against the Investigating Officer SI Varinder Kumar. Relying upon the above-stated report, the petitioner now seeks quashing of the aforesaid FIR as well as compensation from the State. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner at some length and perused the records. It is quite unfortunate and is invariably noticed by this Court that senior police officers, in total derogation of their duties and powers under the Code of Criminal Procedure, hold parallel enquiries which are meant to help one or the other parties. In a case where the charge-sheet has already been filed and the Court has taken cognizance of the matter, suffice it to observe that the information/material/proof, if any, collected by the police can be placed before the Court concerned by way of a supplementary charge-sheet. No Police Officer has the authority to assume the role of a Court of law and pronounce and given his verdict, as has been done in the present case. The growing tendency amongst the police officers to submit contradictory report not only spoils the genuine prosecution cases but also tend to leave an inference that such like reports are submitted purely for extraneous, dishonest and malafide reasons and at the instance of one or the other party. C.W.P.No .16390 of 2010 3 That being so, the desired writ as prayed for by the petitioner, cannot be issued. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to summon the police records in his defence evidence. A copy of this order be sent to the Director General of Police, Punjab, to issue appropriate directions to the police authorities not to pre- empt or transgress the jurisdiction of the Courts of law and if so required, to take stern action against those who are found responsible for such like extra-judicial actions. Dasti. September 14, 2010 (SURYA KANT) Mohinder JUDGE